



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



EFFICIENCY IN TEACHING 



JUNIUS LATHROP MERIAM, A.M. 



SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS 

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 

IN THE 

Faculty of Philosophy 
Columbia University 



PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR 
JU^E 1905 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



EFFICIENCY IN TEACHING 



BY 

JUNIUS LATHROP MERIAM, A.M. 



SUBMriTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS 

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 

IN THE 

Faculty of Philosophy 
Columbia University 



prikted fob the author 
June 1905 






Gift 
Oaraegia Inst. 

14 F '06 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTER I 

PAGE 

General introduction 9 

CHAPTER II 

PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM FOR TEACHERS 

Introduction : 

1. The problem; 12 

2. Generalizations reached 12 

Present Requirements oi Psychology in the Preparation of Teachers : 

1. State Examinations 14 

2. Colleges and Universities 17 

3. Normal Schools 22 

Development ot the Idea that Psychology is Essential in the Training 

of Teachers : 

1. Before Normal Schools took up this work 27 

2. In the Normal Schools 31 

(i) Early Schools 31 

(2) Sixty Years of Normal Work 33 

(3) Influence of the National Educational Association. 35 
Conclusion 36 

CHAPTER III 

OPINIONS OF STUDENTS AS TO THE VALUE OF NORMAL SCHOOL 
PSYCHOLOGY 

Introduction : 

1. The problem 38 

2. Generalizations 41 

Discussion on the Five Questions : 

1. Aim in the Study 42 

2. Portions of the Study Emphasized 43 

3. Text-books Used 43 

5 



6 CONTENTS 

FAGB 

4. Principles for Teaching 43 

5. Psychology vs. Experience 45 

Conclusion 49 

CHAPTER IV 

ON THE CORRELATION BETWEEN TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 

Introduction : 

z. The problem 51 

2. General Conclusions Reached 52 

Method of Study : 

1. Data Collected 55 

2. Character of Data 57 

3. Method of Securing Data 59 

4. Method of Treatment 60 

(i) Coefficients of Correlation 60 

(2) Combining Schools 64 

(3) Tables of Distribution 67 

Interpretation and Discussion : 

1. General Explanation of Tables and Tabular Views of 

Indices 68 

2. General View of the Correlations jy 

3. More Specific Considerations 78 

(i) Teaching and Practice Teaching 78 

(2) Teaching and "Professional" Studies 80 

(3) " Methods " and " Academic " Work 81 

(4) Civil Service Examinations 83 

(5) Manual Arts , 85 

(6) Methods of Marking 86 

Marks too high 87 

Distribution eccentric 88 

Grading by relative position 91 

Wide range of distribution 92 

Normal curve the standard 94 

4. Samples of Grades 96 

5. Sample Tables 99 

CHAPTER V 

GENERAL TRAINING OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS 

Introduction : 

1. The problem 104 

2. Generalizations 104 



CONTENTS y 

PAGE 

Method : 

1. Data collected 105 

2. Regrouping 106 

Discussion of the Five Questions : 

1. Grade in School 107 

2. Experience in Teaching 108 

3. Study in High School iii 

4. Study in College 112 

5. Professional Study 114 

CHAPTER VI 

THE INSTRUCTORS IN THE NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 

Introduction : 

1. The problem 116 

2. General Conclusions 119 

3. Data used 120 

Degrees Held by Normal School Teachers : 

1. Distribution of Degrees 120 

1. In Normal Schools • 120 

2. In Schools of Education 127 

2. Colleges and Universities Represented by Degrees .... 130 

Non-degree Instructors 132 

Study oi one School 134 

Summary and Conclusion 136 

Supplementary Study : 

1. 49 State Normal Schools 139 

2. Contributions to Pedagogical Literature by Normal School 

Teachers 147 

Bibliography = 151 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION AND 
EFFICIENCY IN TEACHING 



CHAPTER I 

INTRODUCTION 



The five studies here collected relate to the work of Nor- 
mal Schools as training- institutions, and to the efficiency 
of teachers in the elementary schools. They all bear upon 
the problem of the relation between ability to teach and 
proficiency in previous study and training. 

There is room for much more emphasis upon limiting the 
work of the Normal Schools to the preparation of teachers 
for elementary schools, instead of attempting, as some do, 
to prepare superintendents and principals in town high 
schools, as well as special teachers in high schools. This is 
particularly true where such teachers, principals and super- 
intendents have had no more advanced education than that 
offered in our secondary schools. On the letter-heads used 
by one of these Normal School graduates a statement is 
made of the various courses of study and of the opportuni- 
ties offered in his school, after which are the words : " Col- 
lege preparatory work our specialty." Here is an illustra- 
tion of how the Normal Schools tend to place their graduates 
in secondary school positions, and how these teachers un- 
dertake work which cannot be efficiently done with so 
limited training. 

Such tendencies carry with them the implication that the 

9 



lO NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

elementary school does not present the real educational prob- 
lems found in the higher work. An educational institution 
is doing real work when it is delving into vital educational 
problems. If the elementary jfield did not offer such prob- 
lems, to enter the higher fields is of course advisable. The 
present studies may serve, however, to point out some prob- 
lems of the lower grades that need study. That scarcely 
any of such work is now done in the Normal Schools may 
find some explanation in one of the present studies, that on 
the instructors in the State Normal Schools of New York. 

The first study given here is of an historical nature, in- 
quiring briefly into the beginning and rise of the study of 
psychology in Normal Schools (confined here to the United 
States). It will be seen that the study of psychology has 
been a prominent factor in the curriculum from the first, 
but that the nature of this work has been very general and 
even indefinite, and that its improvement has not kept pace 
with the advances of psychology itself. 

The second study is that of a questionnaire on the contri- 
bution made by Normal School psychology to efiiciency in 
teaching. This is based wholly on the personal opinion of 
Normal School graduates now teaching, hence generaliza- 
tions can be made only provisionally. The evidence, direct 
and indirect, shows that the work of the schools in psychol- 
ogy is vague, loose, and in need of reconstruction. 

The third is a statistical study of the relations between 
teaching efficiency and scholarship in the various studies 
pursued by teachers in their Normal School course. This 
involves a study of 1,185 teachers, and about 25,000 indi- 
vidual records of scholarship. Here success in practice- 
teaching and in the study of psychology are found to be the 
largest contributors to efficiency in teaching. The study 
also suggests that the emphasis given to "Methods" is ill- 
placed; that subject-matter courses themselves take slightly 



INTRODUCTION II 

higher rank than such " Methods." Further, the study- 
shows weakness in present methods of grading scholarship 
in school work. Another method is suggested. 

The fourth study deals very briefly with the general prep- 
aration of elementary teachers. After a year or so, ex- 
perience seems to contribute little, if any, to efficiency. 
That is, teachers with two years' experience have as high 
a rank as those with five, ten, or fifteen years' experience. 
More or less than a four-years' high school course makes 
no difference. College graduates are less successful in the 
lower grades. Professional work in Normal Schools does 
not contribute as much as one would expect, though Nor- 
mal School graduates do better than teachers trained in city 
training schools, and these in turn better than teachers with 
no pedagogical education at all. 

The fifth study inquires concerning the qualifications of 
the teachers in the State Normal Schools of New York. 
Only about one-fourth of these are college graduates, and 
one-third have never studied further than the Normal 
Schools in which they are teaching. This characteristic of 
the teaching staffs is supported further by a detailed study 
of one of the schools throughout its history; also, by a 
study of forty-nine representative Normal Schools through- 
out the country, outside of New York; and lastly, by the 
slight contributions made to current pedagogical literature 
by Normal School teachers. 

The outline in the presentation of these studies is : 

1. Introduction, stating — 

(i) The problem. 

(2) The general conclusions. 

2. Method of treating the study. 

3. Details of the study. 

4. Generalizations and conclusions, more in detail. 



CHAPTER II 
PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM FOR TEACHERS 

Introduction 

1. The Problem. 

What has decided the nature of the professional training 
of teachers? The introduction and development of psy- 
chology is taken as a type for study. 

The subjects of study pursued by those preparing for 
the work of a teacher are, in the main, selected according 
to the personal opinion of those in charge, or are now used 
because of their traditional standing. No pedagogical cur- 
riculum has ever been worked out by scientific method ; no 
scientific tests have ever been applied to the usual subjects 
in the curriculum to see what relative value they have in 
the preparation of the teacher. We have, therefore, only 
traditional standing and personal opinion to guide us. To 
point out what this opinion is (with reference to one sub- 
ject, psychology) and to show how opinion has developed 
in the preparation of the teacher in the elementary schools 
is the purpose of this chapter. 

2. Generalisations Reached. 

The points of emphasis in this chapter may be seen in 
the following brief outline : 

I. The present requirements in the preparation of the 
teacher, with special reference to psychology. 

I. Examinations for state certificates ask for some 
knowledge of psychology in a majority of cases. 



PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 



n 



2. Certificates to teach, given by colleges and uni- 
versities, make this same requirement, with but 
few exceptions. 

3. Diplomas from State Normal Schools invariably 
require psychology. 

2. The development of the idea that psychology is needed 
in courses for teachers. 

1. Though the Normal School idea was first pre- 
sented in 1789, it was not until 1825 that open 
opinion was expressed in favor of the study of 
mind as essential for teachers. This contained 
no clear idea of the scope or content of psychol- 
ogy, but was a demand for the study of mental 
phenomena, so far as possible at that time. 

2. Study in the philosophy of mind was present in 
all the early Normal Schools, due to the concep- 
tion that the science of education and the art of 
teaching were based on the philosophy of mind, 
but the great need of academic work in the com- 
mon branches made this subject secondary. 

3. Its development from 1839 until recent years was 
very slow, and its content was very indefinite. 
Its character seems closely allied to moral phil- 
osophy. 

4. Its more rapid development in some schools since 
about 1897 seems to be due, in part, to influence 
from the National Educational Association. 

This chapter assumes : 

I. That the Normal School is, at present, the leading in- 
stitution in the training of elementary teachers, and 
that the development of the idea that psychology is 
essential in the courses is representative of that of 
other subjects. 



14 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

2. That the behef in the value of psychology — whatever 
be the truth or error in the idea — is based, not upon 
knowledge and measurement, but upon personal opin- 
ion and custom. 

3. Tliat a better criterion for the worth of any subject 
in the curriculum for teachers is found in a statistical 
study ; and that in this study an approximation is made 
to a knowledge of the quantitative worth of any sub- 
ject in such courses. 

Present Requirements in Psychology for the 
Preparation of Teachers 

It may be safely said that teachers qualify for their posi- 
tions in one or more of three ways : 

1. Certificates secured through state, county, or local ex- 
amination. 

2. Certificates granted for work done in schools of edu- 
cation, as in colleges and universities. 

3. Diplomas given in recognition of courses pursued in 
Normal Schools (here including City Training Schools). 

The character of the work required as presented by these 
three methods indicates what is commonly regarded as 
essential in the equipment of a teacher. 

I. STATE examinations 

The state of New York issues three grades of certificates 
to teach. The lowest, or third grade, is a license to teach 
for one year. Examinations must be passed in the follow- 
ing subjects: American History, Arithmetic, Grammar, 
English Composition, Geography, Orthography, Penman- 
ship, Physiology and Hygiene, School Law, and Reading. 
The second grade certificate is a license for three years, 
granted upon the completion of ten weeks of experience in 
teaching and of examinations in the following subjects in 



PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 15 

addition to those for the third grade: Civil Government, 
Current Topics, Drawing-, Methods and School Manage- 
ment. The first grade certificate is a license for ten years, 
given upon the completion of two years of teaching experi- 
ence and the passing of examinations, in addition to those 
in the two grades above, in Algebra, Bookkeeping, History 
of Education, and Physics/ 

Chapter 329 of the Acts of 1894 of the Massachusetts 
Legislature, approved April 28, 1894, directs that " the 
Board of Education shall cause to be held public examina- 
tions of candidates for the positions of teachers in the 
public schools of the Commonwealth. Such examinations 
shall test the professional as well as the scholastic abilities 
of the candidates." The Secretary of the Board states 
that the law has not been carried into effect, because of 
insufficient appropriation. " This [permission to teach 
without examination] is in sympathy with the general 
Massachusetts spirit in things educational, a spirit that 
invites and tries to convince before it positively com- 
mands." ^ " The Massachusetts ideal is a system of state 
licensing whose standards shall be above those of the Nor- 
mal schools and colleges. . . . The system implies, for the 
present, a voluntary basis, since its standards are higher 
than could be maintained on a compulsory basis. It does 
not require the teacher to hold a state license or the school 
committee to demand it." ^ 

Ohio grants two state certificates good for life: 
I. Common schools : Examinations are given in Orthog- 
raphy, Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Algebra, Geography, 
English Grammar and Composition, History of the United 

1 Report of State Superintendent of New York for 1902, pp. 167-169. 

2 Report of Massachusetts State Board of Education, 1899-1900, p. 228. 

3 Ibid., 1899-1900, p. 230. 



1 6 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

States including Civil Government, General History, Eng- 
lish Literature, Physiology and Hygiene, Physics, Theory 
and Practice of Teaching, and Scientific Temperance. 

2. High schools : In addition to the above, examinations 
in Geometry, Rhetoric, Civil Government, Latin, Psychol- 
ogy, History of Education, Science of Education. Also 
three branches from the following: Chemistry, Botany, 
Zoology, Geology, Astronomy, Trigonometry, Logic, Greek, 
German, Political Economy.^ 

Illinois ^ grants two state certificates ; one for five years, 
the other for life. The former calls for examinations in 
the usual academic work; the latter increases the academic 
work, and adds " Pedagogy." 

Two state certificates are granted in Iowa,® High School 
and Elementary. Under the former " Graduates of the col- 
lege of liberal arts of the state university, who have pursued 
in addition to the course in psychology, a pedagogical course 
of at least one year . . . will be admitted to the examina- 
tions. . . . School Management, Elementary Psychology, 
and Methods of Instruction constitute the examination in 
this subject" (Didactics). An examination in the " Psy- 
chology of the Child " is required of elementary teachers. 

In Missouri, " all applicants for state certificates will be 
"examined in . . . psychology." * The state report for 1904 
makes psychology optional. 

In New Hampshire, " permanent certificates " require 
examinations in psychology and the history of education. 

In Michigan and Colorado, I find no mention of psychol- 
ogy in examinations. 

^ Report, Commissioner of Common Schools, 1902, p. 19. 
2 Report, Illinois Board of Education, 1900- 1902, p. 29. 

• Report, Iowa Board of Education, 1902-1903, p. 140-142. 

* Report, Missouri State Superintendent of Schools, 1897, p. 24. 



PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 17 

These nine states may be taken as representative states, 
or better, as leading states. The importance of such data 
in this particular investigation does not call for a larger 
representation of states. 

Examinations for state certificates only have been con- 
sidered. It is well known that county, township, and local 
examinations vary much, but the probability is that such 
examinations are considerably directed by those for the 
state certificates. 

2. COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 

Consider, secondly, requirements in the various schools 
of education in colleges and universities. 

Teachers College of Columbia University offers a four 
years' course leading to the degree of Bachelor of Science 
in Education. The first two years' work is considered col- 
legiate, though arranged with a view to later professional 
work. 



Students in the Collegiate Course are required to take work during 
the freshman and sophomore years amounting to a total of thirty points. 
The courses necessary to meet these requirements may be chosen by the 
student at will — from -those designated in the annual Announcement by 
letters and by the numbers 1-9 inclusive — subject to the approval of the 
Committee on Undergraduate Students, and according to the general 
regulations of the College and the following: 

Outline of Course 

(A) For all students: 

I — English A — Rhetoric and Composition — 3 points. 

2 — English 2 or 5 — Literature — 2 points. 

3 — Biology and Physical Education 3 ■» 

Physiology and Hygiene / ^ P°'"*^- 

4 — And courses amounting to 2 points in Fine Arts, Music, or 
Manual Training. 



1 8 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

(B) Students who do not offer the following subjects at entrance 
must take in college the courses appearing opposite them (unless a more 
advanced course in the same department be elected), namely, 

Entrance Subjects. College Courses. 

I — German German A — 3 points. 

2 — French French A — 3 points 

or German 2 — 3 points. 

3 — Advanced Mathematics Mathematics A or B — 3 points. 

4 — Advanced History History A — 3 points. 

(C) Also two of the courses following, unless the subjects appearing 
in connection with them are offered at entrance: 

I — Chemistry Physical Science i — 2 points. 

2 — Physics Physical Science 2 — 2 points. 

3 — Botany Biology i — 2 points. 

4 — Zoology Biology 2 — 2 points. 

5 — Physiography Geography i — 2 points. 

(D) All students in the freshman and sophomore years of the Col- 
legiate Course are required to take systematic physical exercise two 
hours weekly, under the direction of the Professor of Physical Educa- 
tion. Students may meet this requirement by taking, with credit. Physi- 
cal Education i or 2. 

Electives should be selected with a view to the Professional Course 
that is to ifollow. 

Courses in Education (except Psychology A and Education 10, which 
are recommended to qualified sophomores) are not open to collegiate 
students.! 

The last two years are considered professional. If taken 
without the two years of collegiate work, they lead to Bach- 
elors' diplomas. The following is the course leading to the 
diploma in elementary education : 

Junior Year 
Prescribed (s points) : Psychology A— Elements of psychology, and 
Education 10 — Educational psychology — (to- 
gether) 3 points. 
Education 12 — Child study — 2 points. 

1 Teachers College Announcement, 1904-1905, pp. 35-37. 



PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 



19 



Elective (10-13 points) 



(a) Recommended for primary teachers : 
Biology and Physical Education 3, Education 
16, English A, English 2 or S, English 10, 
Geography i, History A, Manual Training i 
and 27, Mathematics B, Music i, Nature 
Study 10 and 12. 
{b) Recommended for grammar grade teach- 
ers : 
Biology I, Biology 2, Biology and Physical 
Education 3, English A, English 2 or 5, 
Geography i or 2, History A, History 2, 
Mathematics B, Manual Training i and 27, 
Music I, Physical Science i, Physical 
Science 2. 

Senior Year 
Prescribed (8 points) : Education 50 — History and principles of edu- 
cation — 3 points. 

Education 15 — General .method and practice 
teaching — 3 points. 

Education 20, 26, 32, 38, or 46, with practical 
work — 2 points. 
Elective (7-10 points) : (a) Recommended for primary teachers: 

Education 20 — Nature Study; Education 26 — 
English; Education 32 — Geography; Educa- 
tion 46— Mathematics ; Fine Arts 3, Geog- 
raphy I or 2, Music 2. 

(&) Recommended for grammar grade teach- 
ers : 

Education 20 — Nature Study; Education 26 — 
English ; Education 32 — Geography ; Educa- 
tion 38 — History; Education 46 — Mathe- 
matics ; Domestic Art 12, Fine Arts 3, Geog- 
raphy I, 2, or 3, History 10, Music 2.1 

Similar courses are outlined for teachers in secondary 
schools, teachers of kindergarten, domestic art, domestic 
science, fine arts, manual training, music, physical educa- 
tion. These subjects are common to all as prescribed 
work : Elements of psychology, educational psychology, 
and history and principles of education. All graduate 

^ Teachers College Announcement, 1904-1905, pp. 39-40. 



20 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

diplomas or degrees require of the candidate educational 
psychology, and history and principles of education, as well 
as ability to read French and German. 

The College of Education in Chicago University outlines 
the following two years' course for teachers in the elemen- 
tary schools : ^ 

Philosophy and Education 3 points. 

History, English, and Oral Reading 3 " 

Arts 2 " 

Mathematics i " 

Science 3 " 

Electives 6 " 

(Total required) 18 

Specific prerequisites for this work are Psychology, 
Ethics, and Educational Theory — two points. For second- 
ary and Normal School teachers, " Psychology and Ethics 
are required as antecedents." In General Course A four 
points in psychology are required. 

The Teachers College of the University of Missouri, 
which began its work in the fall of 1904, offers a four 
years' course leading to the degree of Bachelor of Science 
in Education. One hundred and twenty (120) hours of 
work are required. (This means 15 hours of class attend- 
ance each week.) Further requirements of the student 
are : " He must complete work in education to the amount 
of 24 hours, including Practice Teaching (3 to 9 hours 
credit) and Educational Psychology." " He must com- 
plete a course in General Psychology with at least 3 hours 
credit. This course must be completed before the Junior 
year. Additional work in Psychology, or work in Ethics 
or in Sociology, may be required by the instructor in charge 
of any course in education." ^ 

1 Chicago University Annual Register, 1902-1903, pp. 137-138. 

2 Catalogue, University of Missouri, 1904-1905, pp. 143-144. 



PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 2 1 

Life certificates to teach in the secondary and elementary 
schools require the same amount of education and psy- 
chology. To secure a two years' certificate, the candidate 
must take education and psychology to the extent of at 
least half that required for the degree. 

In the specifications of the' Department of Education of 
the University of California, the following statement is 
made : " The undergraduate courses are reserved for the 
third and fourth years of college residence. Students who 
purpose taking any of the courses in education are advised 
to prepare for the study by taking one or more of the 
courses in psychology. After the year 1903-4, Philosophy 
2 (general psychology) will be made a prerequisite of all 
undergraduate courses in the department." ^ 

In the University of Wisconsin, psychology is required 
for teachers' certificates, granted by the university under 
the regulation of the state. ^ 

Cornell University requires, for the New York State col- 
lege-graduate certificate, history of education and principles 
of education or psychological basis of education.^ 

In Dartmouth College, psychology is " strongly recom- 
mended as a preparation for the courses in education." * 

The University of Cincinnati requires psychology in its 
Teachers' College.^ 

In the University of Michigan,® three courses are re- 
quired for both the teachers' diploma and the teachers' cer- 
tificate: Practical Pedagogy (text, Gordy's A Broader Ele- 

1 Catalogue, University of California, 1904, p. 136. 

2 Catalogue, University of Wisconsin, 1903-1904, p. 94. 

3 Cornell Register, 1904-1905, pp. 131-132. 

* Catalogue, Dartmouth College, 1903-1904, p. 147. 

^ Catalogue, 1903-1904, p. 178. 

® Catalogue of the University of Michigan, 1903-1904, pp. 92, 93, 124. 



22 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

mentary Education) ; The Art of Study (text, Hinsdale's 
The Art of Study) ; Theoretical and Critical Pedagogy 
(text, Harris' Psychological Foundations of Education) . 

These nine colleges and universities represent adequately 
the leading ones giving work in education. 

3. NORMAL SCHOOLS 

The first Normal School in this country was founded at 
Lexington, in 1839. Within that year three more were 
started in Massachusetts. New York followed with one at 
Albany, in 1844. Other schools were established rapidly 
until in Massachusetts there are now eight; in New York, 
twelve; in the whole country, one hundred and eleven. 

The schools referred to here are State Public Normal 
Schools. The United States Commissioner's Report for 
1902 gives the following classification of all Normal 
Schools : ^ 

1. Public Normal Schools 173 

2. Private Normal Schools 109 

3. Public Normal Schools in universities and colleges... 39 

4. Private Normal Schools in universities and colleges. . 195 

S- Public Normal Schools in high schools 368 

6. Private Normal Schools in high schools 357 

The type of the third and fourth classes has already been 
indicated in the treatment of schools of education in col- 
leges and universities. The fifth and sixth classes are prob- 
ably intended to include many of the city training classes, 
the work of which is similar to that of the regular Normal 
Schools, though usually more limited in character and 
scope. 

The curricula in the various State Normal Schools in any 

1 Report, Commissioner of Education, 1902, p. 1581. 



PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 23 

given state are quite uniform, being usually prepared by- 
state officials, or by the joint action of the principals of the 
various schools. In most schools the work is wholly pre- 
scribed. 

The general course of study prescribed by the Board of 
Education of Massachusetts for the schools of that state is 
the following: 

1. Psychology, history jf education, principles of teaching, methods 
of instruction and discipline, school organization, school laws of Massa- 
chusetts. 

2. Methods of teaching the following subjects: 

(o) English — reading, language, composition, literature, history. 

(&) Mathematics — arithmetic, bookkeeping, elementary algebra, and 
geometry. 

(c) Science — elementary physics and chemistry, geography, physiology 
and hygiene, stud}^ of minerals, plants, and animals. 

{d) Drawing, vocal music, physical training, manual training. 

3. Observation and practice in the training school, and observation in 
other public schools. ^ 

This course of study was adopted May 6, 1880. Pro- 
vision is made for four other courses, mere modifications 
of this one, which is planned as a two years' course for 
those intending to teach in the elementary schools of the 
state. The equivalent of a high school education is re- 
quired for admission. The time devoted to each subject 
varies in the different schools. 

The schools of New York state have four courses, which 
were adopted September i, 1900.^ Two of these courses 
are for those students who are not graduates of high 
schools. These are four years in length. The other two 
are for high school graduates, and are two years in length, 
as follows : 

* Westfield (Mass.) Catalogue for igoi. 

• New Paltz (N. Y.) Year Book, 1902-1903. 



24 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



Classical and English 
Those in the English course omit the ancient and modern language 
requirements ibelow and substitute 5 hours of work per week under 
advice of division adviser. Classical students omit economics and 
astronomy. 

FIRST YEAK 

First Semester Second Semester 

Rhetoric 4 English literature 4 

Psychology 4 Psychology and General meth. 4 

Math, review ist 10 wk. 4 Science meth. 2d 10 wk. 4 

Prim. meth. ist 10 wk. 4 Arithmetic meth. 4 

Geog. meth. 4 Music ist 10 wk. 2 

Drawing 2d 10 wk. 4 Music meth. 3d 5 wk. 4 

Grammar meth. 4 Geog. meth. ist 10 wk. 4 

Music 2d 10 wk. 2 Lang. meth. ist 10 wk. 4 

Draw. meth. 4th 5 wk. 4 

SECOND YEAR 

First Semester Second Semester 

Latin review 5 Civics 2d 10 wk. 

Adv. U. S. hist. 5 Greek, French or German IV 

Num. meth. 2d 10 wk. 4 Hist, of ed. ist 10 wk. 5 

Economics or Library economy 3 Astronomy ist wk. 3 

Gramimar meth. 4 School law 2d 10 wk. 5 

School Econ. ist 10 wk. 5 Teaching 
Teaching 

Child Study once a week during the year.^ 

The time given to each subject is not uniform in the 
various schools. Other shght modifications are made to 
meet local conditions. The last catalogue of the State Nor- 
mal College " at Albany shows quite an innovation in the 
curricula offered. Many elective courses are opened, but 
certain subjects are required, such as Psychology, History 
of Education, Philosophy of Education, etc. 

The State Normal Schools of Wisconsin have the fol- 
lowing course designated by the Board of Regents : ' 

1 New Paltz (N. Y.) Year Book, 1902-1903. 

2 Circular and Announcement, 1904, pp. 12-21. 

» Catalogue, Oshkosh Normal School, 1901, p. 63. 



PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 



25 



JUNIOR YEAR 



Firsi Quarter 
Observation 

German, or other language 
Drawing 
Rhetoric 

Second Quarter 
Theory 
German 
Drawing 
School Law {Yz) 
Professional Reading {Yz) 

SENIOR 

First Quarter 
Practice Teaching 
Professional Arithmetic 
Psychology 
Geometry 

Second Quarter 
Economics 

Professional History {%) 
Professional Gymnastics {%) 
Psychology 
Practice Teaching 



Third Quarter 
Theory 
German 
Drawing 
Music 
Physics 

Fourth Qtiarter 
School Management 
Professional Geography 
German 
Algebra 
Music 



Third Quarter 
History of Education 
Professional English 
Elective Science 
Literature 

Fourth Quarter 
Science of Education 
Practice Teaching 
Elective Science 
Literature 



The Normal Schools of California are well represented 
by the one at Los Angeles. Its course of study is : ^ 





FIRST YEAR 






Middles 




Middle A 


Professional 


Psychology 20-4 




Psychology 20-4 


English 


Composition, etc., 


,20-4 




Science 


Physiology 20-4 




Biology 20-4 




Domestic Science 


20-2 


Domestic Science 20-3 


Geography and History 






U. S. History 20-4 


Art and Manual Training 


Drawing 20-2 




Drawing 20-.1 




Sloyd 2»-a 




Sloyd 20-3 


Miscellaneous 


Reading 20-4 








Music 20-2 




Music 20-2 




Physical Culture 20-2 


Physical Culture 20-3 



1 Catalogfue, Los Angeles Normal School, 1901. 



26 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



Professional 



Enelish 



Science 

Geography and History 



SECOND YEAR 

Senior B 
Hist. & Phil, of Ed. 20-3 
General Pedagogy 20-3 

Pedagogy of Grammar 20-3 

Pedagogy of Physics 20-2 
Pedagogy of Geography 20-4 



Mathematics Pedagogy of Arith. 20-5 

Art and Manual Training Pedagogy of Drawing 20-2 
Miscellaneous Pedagogy of Music 20-1 

Pedagogy of Phy. Cult. 20-: 



Senior A 
School La\v 20-2 
School Economy 10-3 
Teaching 20-12^^ 
Lit. in the grades 20-2 
Method in Language 20-1 
Method in Biology 20-1 
Method in History 20-1 
Method in Geography 20-1 
Method in Arith. 20-1 
Method in Drawing 20-1 
Method in Reading 20-1 
Method in Music 20-1 
Method in Phy. Cult. 20-2 



The schools of these four states represent adequately the 
leading Normal Schools of the country. 

In these three groups of institutions, aiming to prepare 
teachers for their work, the emphasis upon psychology as 
an essential is evident. 

1. Examinations (leading to state certificates L 

Nine leading states are here represented. 

Four distinctly require psychology. 

One requires " professional " work. 

One requires "pedagogy" (whatever this includes). 

Three call for academic work only. 

2. Universities (granting teachers' certificates). 

Nine leading institutions are represented here. 

Seven distinctly require psychology. 

One strongly recommends psychology. 

One makes no mention of psychology, as such. 

3. Normal Schools (granting diplomas and certificates). 

Four states, including about 30 of the leading 

schools, are here represented. 
All distinctly require work in psychology. (So far 

as I could ascertain, in looking over about 100 

catalogues of State Normal Schools, psychology 

is included in all.) 



PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 27 

Development of the Idea that Psychology is Es- 
sential IN the Training of Teachers 

I. before normal schools took up this work 

Gordy has written on the Rise and Groiuth of the Normal 
School Idea in the United States/ He says that the first 
suggestion of this which he finds is in the Massachusetts 
Magazine for June, 1789. Here it is stated: " Tliere 
should be a pubHc grammar school established in each 
county in the state in which should be taught English 
Grammar, Latin, Greek, Rhetoric, Geography, Mathematics, 
etc., in order to fit young gentlemen for college and school 
teaching." The famous school law of 1647 gave to the 
towns of Massachusetts a grammar school. The grammar 
school here referred to is, therefore, more especially in- 
tended for the training of teachers. Gordy speaks further 
of the contribution to the Normal School idea given by 
Olmsted, of Yale, 1816; by Kingsley, of Yale, in 1823; 
also by Russel, of the New Haven Academy, and editor of 
the American Journal of Education, in 1823; and by Hall, 
who is recognized as the first principal of the first teachers' 
seminary in America, at Concord, in 1823. Here was pre- 
pared his Lectures on School Keeping, a brief outline of 
which is given in Barnard's American Journal of JEduca- 
tion, vol. 5, p. 388. 

While the contributors mentioned emphasize the need of 
training schools for teachers, none of them gives expression 
to the need of studying other subjects than those which 
are to be taught. 

In 1825, in the Boston Patriot, published by James G. 
Carter, appeared a series of articles with the signature 

1 Also found in the United States Bureau of Education, Circulars of 
Information, i8gi, No. 8, pp. 1-142. 



28 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

*' Franklin," giving suggestions for an institution for the 
training of teachers/ It was there maintained that such 
an institution should " open up a new science somewhat 
peculiar to itself in the science of the development of the 
human mind. . . . The philosophy of the infant mind must 
be understood by the instructor before much progress can 
be made in the science of education. . . . Every book, there- 
fore, which v/ould aid in an analysis of the youthful mind 
should be placed in the library of the proposed institution." 
This is the first expression I find on the need of studying 
mental phenomena in the preparation of a teacher. Vari- 
ous other articles appear about this time in the Boston 
Patriot, North American Reviezv, United States Reviezv, 
Literary Gazette, but these advocate the founding of teach- 
ers' seminaries without going into detail. In the same 
year, 1825, Johnson issued a pamphlet on " The Need of 
Attending Lectures on the Science of Mental Develop- 
ment." ' 

In 1830 a school for the training of teachers was attached 
to Phillips Academy, at Andover. S. R. Hall was made 
principal. The course of study contains " intellectual phil- 
osophy " in the third year.^ 

In 1830, J. G. Carter, Secretary of the Massachusetts 
Board of Education, and often called the " Father of 
American Normal Schools," wrote an article on " Develop- 
ment of Intellectual Faculties." * Here he speaks strongly 
in favor of the study of mind as a requisite in the prepara- 
tion of a teacher. " The foundations of a teacher's pro- 

1 Portions are quoted in Barnard, On Normal Schools, p. 75 et seq. 

2 Gordy, supra, p. 14. 

8 Barnard, American Journal of Education, vol. v, p. 379. 
* American Institute of Instruction, 1830, pp. 52-95. 



PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 



29 



fessional skill are laid in an intimate acquaintance with the 
conditions, states, and wants of the youthful mind." He 
attempts a practical application in a lesson on map-drawing-, 
the methods of which are much like the methods of to-day. 

A. R. Baker, in the same periodical three years later, re- 
peats the thought in an article " On the Adaptation of In- 
tellectual Philosophy to Instruction." ^ His emphasis is 
upon the intimate relation between intellectual philosophy 
and education. Intellectual philosophy is defined as "a 
science of the human mind which investigates its phenom- 
ena, and applies the results of the investigation to the prac- 
tical purposes of active life." 

In 1833, Dr. Channing speaks of the importance of hav- 
ing the teacher comprehend " the mind in all its capacities, 
tracing out the laws of thought and moral actions, under- 
standing the perfection of human nature." ^ 

J. Gregg, in 1835, is yet more emphatic in writing on 
" The Importance of an Acquaintance with the Philosophy 
of Mind to an Instructor." ^ He says this is not mere 
psychology. " It does not consist merely in the observation 
and arbitrary classification of the phenomena of the con- 
scious states of the mind." It is rather " the knowledge of 
man as an intellectual and spiritual being — of his natures, 
powers, capacities, habitudes, wants — of the laws and prin- 
ciples that regulate the various mental and moral phenom- 
ena which he exhibits." The article aims to show that the 
philosophy of mind teaches the true (i) nature, (2) method, 
(3) means, and (4) ends of education. It is here very 
clear, as the article claims, that by the philosophy of mind 

1 American Institute of Instruction, 1833, pp. 263-288. 

2 Quoted by Barnard, On Normal Schools, p. 93. 
^American Institute of Instruction, 1835, pp. 111-131. 



30 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

is intended what was then known as a scientific study of 
psychology, and also a philosophy of education. 

By act of the Legislature of New York, May 2, 1834, 
the Regents of the University were authorized to apply a 
part of the income of the Literature Fund to educate the 
teachers of the common schools. In the following year, 
1835,^ a plan was put into effect whereby a department 
for the training of teachers was grafted upon selected 
academies. 

The course of study for teachers included the following: 

1. The English Language. 

2. Writing and Drawing. 

3. Arithmetic, Mental and Written, and Bookkeeping. 

4. The History of the United States. 

5. Geometry, Trigonometry, Mensuration, and Survey- 

ing. 

6. Geography and General History (continued). 

7. Natural Philosophy and the Elements of Astronomy. 

8. Chemistry and Mineralogy. 

9. The Constitution of the United States and of New 

York. 

10. Select Parts of the Revised Statutes and the Duties of 

Public Officers. 

11. Moral and Intellectual Philosophy. 

12. The Principles of Teaching.^ 

This indicates that the academies perceived the nped of 
giving to teachers a different kind of curriculum from the 
mere academic work. Yet this intellectual philosophy is 
probably not specially for teachers, as it is found in An- 

1 First Quarto — Centennial History — Poitsdam Normal School, p. 17. 

2 Report, State Superintendent, 1836-1837, pp. 41-42. 



PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 31 

dover Academy in 1848, and in Albany Academy in 1874/ 
when this work had passed from the academy to the Nor- 
mal School. But in the rise of Normal Schools, the acad- 
emies lost the work of training teachers. Horace Mann, 
in 1839,- in advocating Normal Schools for Massachusetts, 
opposed the academies of New York on the ground that in 
these the teachers' training department was only grafted 
on, while for real success it should be the principal part; 
hence the need of a distinct institution, the Normal School. 
These few expressions are types of many other opinions 
of those early years as to one particular subject of study 
needed by those who would be teachers. No reader will 
find in any of these writings a detailed conception of psy- 
chology, nor of what it has to offer to the prospective 
teacher. Yet one cannot fail to feel the insistence made 
that the study of mind is essential in preparing for efficient 
teaching. The public advocacy of such beliefs was a fore- 
runner of what was soon to be found in Normal Schools. 

2. IN THE NORMAL SCHOOLS 

I. Early Normal Schools. 

The first course of study for Normal Schools was adopted 
by the Board of Education of Massachusetts in 1840. It 
was as follows, and is essentially that outlined by Horace 
Mann the year before at the opening of the work at Lex- 
ington : 

1. Orthography, Reading, Grammar, Composition and 

khetoric, Logic. 

2. Writing, Drawing. 

3. Arithmetic, Mental and Written; Algebra; Geom- 

etry; Bookkeeping; Navigation; Surveying. 

4. Geography, Ancient and Modern, with Chronology, 

Statistics, and General History. 
1 See Catalogue for these years. 



32 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

5. Physiology. 

6. Mental Philosophy. 

7. Music. 

8. Constitution and History of Massachusetts and the 

United States. 

9. Natural Philosophy, and Astronomy. 

10. Natural History. 

11. The Principles of Piety and Morality, common to all 

sects of Christians. 

12. The Science and Art of Teaching, with reference to 

all the above-named studies.^ [The italics show 
the emphasis intended at that time.] 

In his opposition to the attempt of the House of Repre- 
sentatiA^es in Massachusetts, in 1840, to break up the Nor- 
mal Schools, Mr. Geo. B. Emerson, formerly principal of 
the Boston High School, based his arguments upon three 
prominent features of the work as carried on by Cyrus 
Pierce, principal of the Normal School at Lexington. The 
second of these features was the emphasis upon leading 
prospective teachers to an acquaintance with the minds and 
character of children.^ 

Dr. Samuel Howe, director of the Institute for the Blind 
in Boston, reported his observations of the work at Lexing- 
ton. " To me, sir, it was dehghtful to see how they [the 
students] were becoming acquainted with the nature of the 
children's minds before they undertook to manage them. 
. . . Every one was desirous of becoming acquainted with 
the philosophy of mind." ^ 

1 Common School Journal, 1839, pp. 37-38. See also Barnard, On 
Normal Schools, pp. 56-57. 

2 Common School Journal, 1840, p. 237. 
8 Common School Journal, 1840, p. 238. 



PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 



33 



The attempt of the House of Representatives failed, and 
the Normal Schools, under the lead of Horace Mann, con- 
tinued and maintained " mental science," or " philosophy 
of the mind" (various names were used), as one of the 
requisites in the training of teachers. 

The first Normal School of New York state was founded 
at Albany in 1844. Its first course of study included 
Abercrombie's Intellectual Philosophy.^ 

The first Normal school in Connecticut was founded at 
New Britain in 1850. The catalogue shows as a portion 
of the course " The Art of Teaching and its Methods, in- 
cluding the history and progress of education, the philos- 
ophy of teaching and discipline, as drawn from the nature 
of the juvenile mind. . . ." - 

These few schools referred to are doubtless typical of all 
early Normal Schools. The following generalizations are 
easily made, in studying further the courses of study offered : 

1. The Normal Schools had a conception that the science 
of education and the art of teaching were in some way 
based on the philosophy of mind, but, 

2. The need of a more thorough knowledge of the acad- 
emic work was so great that the instruction in the common 
branches was the chief work of these schools, so that, 

3. Work in intellectual philosophy was rather secondary, 
and that, too, quite vague. But in the work of these early 
schools there is a distinct beginning of the teaching of 
psychology as essential in the preparation of the teacher. 

2. Sixty Years of Normal School Work. 

An examination of the catalogues of the Normal Schools 
of Massachusetts and New York from their beginning to 

1 Register and Circular, 1846, p. 16. 

2 Barnard, On Normal Schools, pp. 48-49. 



34 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

the present time ; as also the State Annual Reports of these 
schools (which are very meager) lead one to the following 
conclusions : 

1. Mental philosophy of some kind — even if only in 
name — has been in the courses of study from the beginning. 

2. This subject has always been very vague and indefi- 
nite; yet it evidenced a constant endeavor to point to an 
important relation between the ability to teach and the 
knowledge of mental activity. 

3- This subject is mixed up with other educational sub- 
jects, such as the history of education, philosophy of edu- 
cation, general method, etc. It has usually been taught by 
the principal of the school in connection with the other sub- 
jects mentioned. (At present, there are only three schools 
in Massachusetts which have special teachers of psychology, 
and in New York only five.) 

4. There is no distinct time when " Psychology," as such, 
first appeared. It is thus mentioned first in Westfield, 1867 ; 
Bridgewater, 1869; Framingham, 1876. But there is no 
indication that the name changed the character of the work. 

5. There is no indication of any uniformity in the char- 
acter of the work done, though the aims of the work, as 
stated in the catalogues of the various schools, are in close 
agreement. The only effort towards united action in this 
respect is that which was taken by the Wisconsin Normal 
Schools in an institute held at Oshkosh, December 17- 
21, 1900, when the schools of the state agreed upon and 
formulated aims, content, and method of the work to be 
done in psychology. 

6. There is striking evidence of a great lack of develop- 
ment in this work from the beginning. However, in a few 
schools, quite a change has been made in recent years, par- 
ticularly since 1897. This recent change seems due largely 



PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 



35 



to the pressure brought to bear by the Normal School de- 
partment of the National Educational Association. The 
work of this organization in this particular can be summed 
up briefly. 

J. The Influence of the National Educational Association. 

The National Educational Association began in 1858, as 
the National Teachers' Association. The Normal School 
department gave the subject of psychology no attention 
until 1863. For the next decade various well-known men 
gave addresses emphasizing the value of psychology in the 
preparation of the teacher (in 1863, Dr. Sheldon/ of the 
Oswego Normal School; in 1864, President Hill,^ of Har- 
vard; in 1865, President Edwards/ of the Illinois Normal 
University; in 1866, W. F. Phelps/ of the Winona (Wis.) 
Normal School; in 1871, J. W. Dickinson/ principal of 
the Westfield (Mass.) Normal School). Whatever gen- 
eral influence these addresses may have had, no definite 
action was taken. 

In 1874 were presented two papers, one by L. Dunton," 
of the Bridgewater (Mass.) Normal School; one by John 
Ogden,'' of Ohio. These aroused sufficient interest to have 
a motion made that a committee be appointed for definite 
action, but the motion failed. During the next ten years 
there was a lull, save that three different years saw an 
attempt to do something, but in vain. 

In 1885, A. R. Taylor,* principal of the State Normal 
School of Kansas, succeeded in securing the appointment 
of a committee. Tliis became known as the " Chicago Com- 

1 N. E. A., 1863, p. 95. ^Ibid., 1864, p. 179- 

^Ihid., i86s, p. 271. ^Ibid., 1866, p. i3S- 

Ibid., 1871, pp. 73-79- " Ibid., 1874, pp. 234-245. 

■^ Ibid., 1874, pp. 216-229. 8 Ibid., 1885, p. 223. 



36 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

mittee." In 1889, this committee made its final report on 
" Methods of Instruction and Courses of Instruction in 
Normal Schools." ^ This was so general in nature that it 
reached no definite conclusions. After a life of four years 
this committee died, leaving only a record of agitation. 

In the next five years, 1890- 1894, there was practically 
nothing done. 

In 1895, Z. X. Snyder, of the Normal School at Gree- 
ley, Colo., secured the appointment of what became known 
the next year as the " Denver Committee." This commit- 
tee worked for four years, and in 1899 made its report. 
Its chief contribution was the suggestion of six " centers " 
from which a good Normal School course could be derived. 
Genetic psychology is given one year's study. 

In the year 1893, the well-known " Committee of Fif- 
teen " was appointed by the department of superintendents. 
It reported in 1895. A sub-committee of five, all city 
superintendents, prepared a report on " The Training of 
Teachers." One question answered was, "To what extent 
should psychology be studied, and in what way?" The 
committee advocated the study of psychology as a basis for 
principles and methods. " Most fundamental and import- 
ant of the professional studies which ought to be pursued 
by one intending to teach is psychology." ^ 

The positive report of this committee, together with ap- 
pended expressions from individual men of educational 
prominence, has doubtless had considerable influence in 
arousing more attention to this subject in the Normal 
Schools, some of which give considerable evidence of this. 

Thus far, this chapter has tried to point out present prac- 
tice as to requirements made of those preparing to teach, 

1 N. E. A., 1889, pp. 570-587. 

2 Report of Committee of Fifteen, p. 24. 



PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CURRICULUM 37 

as carried out in state examination systems and in curricula 
for intending teachers studying in universities and Normal 
Schools. Throughout, an emphasis has been found upon 
psychology/ This tradition and present practice is used as 
evidence — ^generally accepted — that psychology is an essen- 
tial, a sine qua non, in the preparation of the teacher. 
Whatever truth there may be in this conclusion, the method 
would be considered vi^rong by Pearson. " It is imagina- 
tion solving the universe, propounding a formula before 
the facts which the formula is to describe have been col- 
lected and classified. . . . Every few months we find, in 
one journal or another, some more or less brilliant hypoth- 
esis as to a novel factor in evolution; but how few are the 
instances in which this factor is accurately defined, or, be- 
ing defined, a quantitative measure of its efficiency is ob- 
tained." " 

1 The development of this idea as to psychology is doubtless typical 
of that of any other subject in the Normal School course. 

2 Pearson, Grammar of Science, p. 373. 



CHAPTER III 

OPINIONS OF STUDENTS AS TO THE VALUE OF NORMAL 
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY 

It has elsewhere been pointed out that the Normal 
Schools have from the first emphasized the study of psy- 
chology by prospective teachers. This subject has appeared 
in the curriculum of every Normal School throughout the 
country. It has been tacitly assumed that the scientific or 
unscientific study of mind is a prerequisite to aiding in the 
developing of mind. Normal School instructors have 
looked to this subject as central in the course. Normal 
School students have usually had little, if any, choice in their 
work, and so have studied psychology without question. 
Patrons of the Normal School, and also the public schools, 
have usually been in sympathy with the Normal School 
practice. 

The real question as to the pedagogical value of psy- 
chology has been little discussed. The question was, how- 
ever, raised only two years after the founding of the Nor- 
mal School. This was done by the editor of the American 
Institute of Instruction.^ In a large number of articles in 
this periodical from the year of its founding, 1830 to 1899, 
the one article referred to is alone in calling in question the 
usually accepted value credited to this subject. In recent 
years Professor Miinsterberg sounded a similar dissent in 
asserting that while psychology is a good educator, it has 

1 American Institute of Instruction, 1841, pp. 41-64. 



VALUE OF NORMAL SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY 



39 



no practical use in the hands of the teacher. Psychology 
is general, and cannot do justice to an individual case, as is 
demanded in teaching. Tact and sympathy are inhibited 
in the psychological teacher.^ Dr. E. Harlow Russell, the 
head of one of the best known Normal Schools, while not 
agreeing with Professor Miinsterberg, emphatically opposes 
the importance usually given to psychology.^ 

Just what psychology contributes to the individual teacher 
in her work is not easy to determine. It may even be im- 
possible, and thus always remain a matter of personal judg- 
ment. Yet, a consensus of personal opinion cannot but 
contribute to the problem, even if not directly to the solu- 
tion. A very limited questionnaire study has been made 
of the problem as to the contribution of psychology to 
efficiency in teaching. Many such studies have been pub- 
lished in the Pedagogical Seminary, and a few in the Amer- 
ican Journal of Psychology. The methods there used have 
been rightly subjected to pointed criticisms.^ i. Much 
ignorance in reply to such questions is used as if it were 
wisdom, but " no research can ever retain a reliability be- 
yond that possessed by the data with which it starts." 2. 
The facts reported are from a small and probably peculiar 
portion of the class involved, and hence are not represen- 
tative. 3. The interpretation of the replies is largely a 
matter of personal opinion, and unless corrected by various 
checks, may lead to gross error. 4. " The progress from 
a set of statements about individuals to a statement about 
a group including them is by no means a matter of simple 
addition." Thus conclusions reached through such unscien- 
tific methods would be wholly unreliable. 

^Atlantic Monthly, 85, p. 656 (May, 1900). 

2 Address before the New England Normal Council, May 15, 1903. 

3 Thorndike, Educational Psychology, pp. 152-162. 



40 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



In the face of such plausible criticisms (with which I 
fully agree) a questionnaire study cannot be put forth for 
the purpose of conviction unless the above errors in method 
can be rendered harmless. In the present study, my use of 
the replies will be such as to make them at least of no great 
importance. 

The conclusions from this questionnaire study do not, 
therefore, pretend to be proved facts, but are given only as 
hypotheses suggested by the study. 

The purpose of this questionnaire was to get an estimate 
of the worth of psychology, as studied in Normal Schools, 
from the graduates of those schools now actively engaged 
in teaching. Questions were sent to graduates of all Nor- 
mal Schools in Massachusetts save one, to all such schools 
in New York save two, and to a few schools in Pennsyl- 
vania and the Northwest. Questions were sent to four 
hundred and seventy-two persons, most of whom had grad- 
uated since 1897, and had had at least two years of experi- 
ence. The following are the questions : 

1. What did you feel to be the aim in the study of psy- 
chology ? 

2. What portions of psychology were most emphasized? 

3. What text-books or works on psychology did you 
study or read? 

4. Did you find in psychology principles for teaching? 
Please suggest one or more. 

5. Which has helped you the more in your work, your 
study of psychology, or your study of principles and meth- 
ods based on experience? 

A total of one hundred and sixty-seven replies were re- 
ceived. Twenty-seven schools were represented in these 
replies. The replies to the individual questions are con- 
sidered merely for their suggestiveness. It must be ad- 
mitted at the outset that the number of replies considered is 



VALUE OF NORMAL SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY 



41 



exceedingly small. A consensus of opinion reall}^ worth 
considering would probably ask for no fewer replies from 
each one of the twenty-seven schools. The individuals, 
however, to whom these questions were sent were selected 
wholly at random from lists furnished by the several schools. 
Thorndike, in his criticisms given above, points out that the 
questionnaire m^ethod is deficient on the ground that those 
who do reply are a special group, by reason of the desire 
either to oppose or support a suggested problem, while those 
without this desire do not trouble themselves in answering 
the questions asked. But in the case of the present ques- 
tionnaire, those not replying would probably support, even 
more than those who did reply, the conclusions given below. 
Upon the basis of this brief study, the following general- 
izations are made: 

1. In the minds of those teaching, the work of psychol- 
ogy in the Normal Schools was very indefinite and unpro- 
ductive. 

2. The work done by the various schools, or by students 
in the same school, is not centered about a few principles, 
but is scattered. 

3. The consensus of opinion is strongly in preference for 
experience rather than psychology as a contributing factor 
in their success as teachers. 

4. Normal Schools where there is a special teacher of 
psychology give a more favorable impression of the value 
of the study of psychology. 

5. The opinions concerning 3. summarized in this study 
are found inconsistent with the evidence on the same ques- 
tion, given by the historical point of view,^ and also by the 
statistical study of the relation of psychology to teaching.' 
(However, this latter study, while showing that the cor- 
relations between scholarship in psychology and teaching 

1 See Chapter II. 2 See Chapter IV. 



42 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



efficiency is .418, does not assert that the whole other factor 
involved is experience.) 

The question of greatest interest is the fifth. We are 
interested in the direct question as to whether the teacher 
is conscious of help from her study of psychology in the 
Normal School. The answers to the other questions, how- 
ever, explain somewhat the positions taken with respect to 
the fifth. 

The principle of apperception requires that only when a 
student " knows the purpose of the exercise do apperceiv- 
ing- ideas flow in rich fulness." That is, we expect a stu- 
dent to gain from his study of a subject in proportion as 
he knows the aim in the work. For this reason the first 
question was asked : " What did you feel to be the aim in 
the study of psychology?" To this question only 135 an- 
swers were made. This is only 81 per cent, of the whole 
number making- replies, and only 29 per cent, of those to 
whom letters were sent. There are, however, representa- 
tives from every one of the 27 schools. 

The answers are easily grouped as follows : 

1. Knowledge of mind for the purpose of instruction. 

2. Knowledge of mind as a scientific study. 

3. " To understand the child." 

4. Ethical development. 

5. Special; i. e., scattering answers. 
Table I shows the distribution : 

Table I 

>4«c»i«4-c Number of Per cent, of Replies Per cent, of Replies 

answers. Answers. to this Question. to Total Inquiries. 

1 76 56 16 

2 26 19 6 

3 II 8 2 

4 4 3 I— 

5 20 14 4 

It is readily seen that the educational aspect has the 



VALUE OF NORMAL SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY 



43 



greatest prominence. Its interest is in its relation to the 
position taken on the fifth question considered below. It 
would be expected that the 56 per cent, who found this edu- 
cational aim would also find pedagogical help in the work, 
but the answers to question five are to the contrary. 

The chief interest in the answers to the second question 
(What portions of psychology were most emphasized?) is 
in what they do not contain: — I mean in their lack of defi- 
niteness. The answers were too scattered to have mean- 
ing: e. g., "Mental Development," "Fundamental Prin- 
ciples," " Principles of Teaching." Other answers covered 
an indefinite range: e. g., " Mental Development," "Mem- 
ory," " Attention," " Will," " Interest," " Imagination," 
all these in one answer. The leading conclusion, then, on 
this question is that no strong impression of one large and 
central thought, such as Herbart's apperception, or James' 
emphasis on native and acquired reactions, was made. The 
students left the school with many names of psychological 
topics in mind, and with no central thought. 

Answers to the question on text-books show the chaotic 
condition of Normal School instruction in psychology. 
Forty-eight different books are mentioned. James, Talks 
to Teachers and Briefer Course (not distinguished), heads 
the list. Next in order are Halleck, Sully, Baldwin, 
(Joseph, I suspect,) Todd, Titchener, etc. Some books are 
mentioned that are not now regarded as of much pedagog- 
ical worth, e. g., Haven, Porter, Hitchcock, Alden. Some 
replies show lack of knowledge as to what are psychologies 
by naming Laurie, Mann, McMurry, Rousseau. 

The fourth question asked what principles for teaching 
were found in the study of psychology. A large number 
were given. Many were answers in a single word, and 
this not in all cases suggestive of a real principle. The fol- 
lowing is the list of fifteen given in two or more of the 
answers : 



44 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

Number of votes Value of votes 

1. Pt-oceed from the Known to the Unknown- 2,7 22 + 

2. Association and Apperception 21 13 + 

3. Perception 18 12 + 

4. Habit 23 12 + 

5. Attention 18 8 + 

6. Interest 14 6 + 

7. Memory 11 5 + 

8. Order of Mental Development 8 5 + 

9. Self-activity 2 2 

10. Judgment 2 1 + 

11. Idea first, then the Name 2 i -|- 

12. Proceed from the Whole to the Parts 2 i — 

13. Proceed from the Particular to the General- 3 i~ 

14. First Impressions Are Strongest 3 i — 

15. Proceed from the Easy to the Difficult 2 i — 

Only 109 replies were made to this question, i. e., 65 per 
cent, of total answers, and 23 per cent, of the inquiries 
made. The question of importance here is the emphasis 
laid upon the various so-called principles. Some mentioned 
one only; others gave several. It is unjust to count each 
principle suggested as one. The problem is essentially that 
of counting the ballots of voters who had the privilege of 
voting for any number they pleased. But in voting for 
more than one they thereby split their vote. Thus, one who 
cast five ballots gave to each of such candidates one-fifth 
of a vote. 

The list above shows the results by two methods. The 
first column of figures shows the total of 195 ballots cast 
for the various " candidates." The second column of fig- 
ures shows the result when each candidate received only his 
share when a ballot was split. The relative rank is thus 
slightly changed. Here it is seen that the " Proceed from 
the Known to the Unknown " " covers a multitude of 
sins." It is one of the indefinite statements so character- 
istic of all the answers. Secondly, it is evident that the 
Normal School psychology in the various schools is not 
emphasizing a few, but many diverse, principles. 



Per cent, 
of total. 




Per cent, 
of 114. 


6l 


(71%) 


ye 


19 


(29%) 


24 


20 







VALUE OF NORMAL SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY 45 

The fifth question is the most direct and important one : 
" Which has helped you more in your work, your study of 
psychology, or your study of principles and methods, based 
on experience?" 

The total number of answers to this question was 143, 
i. e., 85 per cent, of all answers given and 30 per cent, of 
inquiries made. The distribution is as follows : 

Answers. 

In favor of experience. ... 87 
In favor of psychology. . . . 2y 
The two not separated .... 29 

There is evidence here of a strong emphasis upon ex- 
perience as more helpful than psychology. The 71 and 29 
per cents, express the ratio when the answers of the 29, 
who do not separate experience and psychology, are evenly 
divided. The more equitable method, however, is to dis- 
card in this treatment these 29. This gives y6 and 24 as 
the percentages of the positive answers for experience and 
psychology. The question as stated may be interpreted as 
referring to psychology as a subject independent of the 
Normal School. It is perfectly possible that many of the 
answers are upon this basis. However, there is evidence 
that it was not so considered in the answers. Again, most 
of the answers are given by teachers who have been out of 
the Normal School less than five years, and they give no 
evidence of studying much psychology in that time. Again, 
as will be shown, there are a large number of positive refer- 
ences to the psychology as studied in the school. The ratio 
in favor of experience is of even more weight than indi- 
cated by the figures, when, as referred to above, it is re- 
membered that the answers — in large measure — are from 
those with quite limited experience. This want of experi- 
ence gives an advantage, if anything, to the side of psy- 
chology. 



46 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

It is of interest and profit to note the impression made 
by a few individual schools. It seems natural to expect 
that those schools having special teachers in psychology- 
would impress their students with the importance of psy- 
chology; whereas, in those schools in which the subject is 
given by the principal of the school, with a much more 
general treatment, much less may be expected. 

Table II, A and B, shows the schools having special 
teachers of psychology, and those having none, respectively. 
(Schools 23 to 29 are omitted, since there seems to be no 
definite field of psychology distinct from pedagogy.) At 
the side of the school list is indicated the number favoring 
experience or psychology. A marked contrast is seen at 
once. In those schools having special teachers of psychol- 
^Sy^ 35/^ P^r cent, favor psychology; while in the other 
class of schools, the per cent, is reduced to 10. In group 
A, only one school, No. 20, gives evidence which might have 
been expected of schools with special teachers. Yet this 
weight is somewhat lessened when it is known that of the 
seven who directly favor psychology, three are teachers of 
psychology; one as principal of a Normal School, one at the 
head of this department in a Normal School, the third as 
teacher of a city training class. A similar disposition can 
be made of three of the seven in school No. 11. In group 
A are only three schools in which those favoring psychology 
equal their opponents in number, and in two of these cases 
they exceed. In group B, six schools have none in favor 
of the psychology studied; and the other four schools have 
only one representative each on this side. Thus, even in 
those schools where much might be expected in emphasis 
upon psychology, little support is found, and much less by 
the other group. 

Some characteristic replies of individuals throw a decided 
light upon the impression Normal School psychology has 
made upon those who have pursued the work. 



VALUE OF NORMAL SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY 
TABLE II 

PSYCHOLOGY VS. EXPERIENCE 



47 











A 










From schools with special 




1 


1 


*. 

pq 


teachers of psychology. 


1 

CO 


1 




u 


* 


cq 


I 

2 


s 

I 


^ 


I 


i 


I 


^ 


I 


3 




2 


I 


8 


I 


I 


2 


4 


3 




2 


9 


3 


2 


3 


1 


4 
I 


I 


I 


10 
II 


:^ 


7 


I 


8 


1 


I 


2 


18 


4 


I 


2 


9 


3 


2 


3 


20 


3 


7 


4 


ID 


4 




I 


38 


2 


I 


I 


11 


i6 
8 

5 


7 


I 


39 


6 


I 


2 


14 
i6 




40 = 64>^ f. 


22 = 35'A % 


17 


i8 


4 
3 


I 


2 


1 I 1 ■ 


19 




20 


3 


7 


4 


B 


21 


I 


I 


I 


From schools without special 


22 
23 
24 
25 


7 
I 
3 


I 
I 


I 
2 
2 


teachers of psychology. 




S 

c 


^ 




26 


3 






^ 




•3 


3|C 


28 


I 






8 







ji 


29 


2 






•g 


& 


^ 


^ 


i 


2 




2 


(n 


w 


CM 


m 


2 


I 


I 










39 


6 


I 


2 


I 

2 


5 
I 


I 


I 




87 = 76 % 


27 = 24 % 


1 
29 


4 


3 




2 










S 


4 


I 


I 








14 


8 












16 


5 












19 


3 












21 


I 


I 


I 








22 


7 


I 


I 








37 


2 




2 






39 = 90 + % 


4 = 10— % 


8 



♦This means that the answers took the position that the two are inseparable. These 
are not considered in the percentages given. 



48 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

" Psychology gave a rationale for all that experience 
taught. It enabled me to profit by experience. . . . Through 
psychology I gained a criterion of value." Essentially the 
same thought is expressed by two others (all three of these 
are Normal School instructors). A very few speak of psy- 
chology as having been to them of a general value — a basis 
for interpretations, a means of awakening mental activities, 
etc. A few, in favoring experience, speak of it as based 
in a general way upon psychology. Only one reply makes 
an attempt to state specifically and concretely results gained 
from the work in psychology. This reply is from a school 
known for its special strength in this department. 

On the other hand is the emphatic position taken by 
those replying against psychology. Many of the answers 
are accompanied by the expressions, " most decidedly," 
" emphatically," etc., none of which are used favoring psy- 
chology. " A waste of time " is used to express the gen- 
eral results of the work. No greater criticism is given 
upon the content of the work than in its being constantly 
characterized as " indefinite." This indefiniteness is indi- 
cated by those who speak in support of the work in psy- 
chology, as well as those who condemn it. Illustrative of 
the former is " My study of psychology taught me to study 
the child from a psychological standpoint;" others speak 
directly of getting very little that was definite. In the sec- 
ond case, this indefiniteness is even more strongly indi- 
cated ; for example, the work in psychology " began no- 
where and ended in the same place;" or, the work was 
" an harrassing blind groping after something intangible ;" 
again, even the instructor " did not know what he was 
doing." 

Many answers point out that the work was " not psy- 
chology at all, but philosophy of education." And this is 
clearly seen in the study of text-books reported. Others 



VALUE OF NORMAL SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY 49 

Speak of the "very superficial study of psychology," and 
characterize it further as " old." A number of these an- 
swers are from college graduates, who have later pursued 
the Normal School course. Most of these express dissatis- 
faction with the work done in psychology. By these refer- 
ence is made to "the much larger and more helpful amount" 
received elsewhere. A representative of one of the leading 
Normal Schools — and now himself a principal — takes a 
position which well expresses the real tendency and chief 
emphasis in the ansv^^ers to this question. He says that in 
the Normal School, experience was of more value to him, 
but that since leaving the school, psychology has taken the 
lead. It is interesting to note, also, that the strongest ex- 
pressions of adverse criticism come from representatives of 
three schools ranked among the highest, all of which have 
special teachers of psychology. 

There may be more scientific tests of the worth of any 
subject, but the impression which such a study makes upon 
a random selection of individuals who have pursued that 
work is an indication of how it is valued, rf not of how it 
ought to be. 

The answers to our question as to the relative value of 
psychology and experience in Normal School work suggest, 
in brief, the following : 

1. The work in psychology has favorably impressed only 
a small minority — 24 per cent. — and only a few of these 
speak specifically in commendation of the work. 

2. The most favorable impression made is in the " gen- 
eral value " of the study — a " brain stretcher," as expressed 
by one. But this suggests : 

3. Characteristic weakness in its indefiniteness. The 
work fails to bring forth results that show clearly to those 
who take it. 

4. The work is more in name than in reality. Some re- 



so 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



plies state that there was no psychology given, though the 
subject does appear in the curriculum. The psychology — 
so-called — is superficial and " old," or is only a name for 
the " Philosophy of Education." 

5. The work falls below that given in college, as testified 
by college graduates ; and further, below that which will be 
obtained in practical work in teaching. 

6. Finally, the contrast between the schools having special 
teachers of psychology and those having none is marked. 
In the former class, roughly, a third favor psychology, 
while in the latter there is less than one in ten. 

It is, perhaps, unnecessary to call the reader's attention, 
in closing this chapter, to the fact that all its contents con- 
cern, not real psychology as it might be taught in Normal 
Schools, but the thing which has been taught under the 
name of psychology. Nor should the reader conclude that 
the obvious inadequacy of psychology as taught implies a 
greater worth in other Normal School subjects. On the 
contrary, there is reason to believe that the other subjects 
would have fared as badly if similarly tested by a question- 
naire of the same sort. 



CHAPTER IV 

ON THE CORRELATION BETWEEN TEACHING EFFI- 
CIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 

Introduction 
I. The Problem. 

Chapter II showed how one particular subject in the cur- 
riculum came to be considered necessary in the training of 
teachers. Chapter III showed the inadequacy of the in- 
struction in one sample subject of the Normal School cur- 
riculum. The present chapter proposes to study, by a sta- 
tistical and scientific method, the relation between teaching 
efficiency and scholarship in various subjects pursued in 
preparation for teaching. 

This is the problem : Is the efficient teacher the proficient 
scholar? To what extent is he so in each of the subjects 
of the Normal School course? In other words, does the 
one who stands high among fellow-teachers stand relatively 
high among fellow-students in the work preparatory to his 
teaching ? Such a study of mental relationships is in itself 
a study of causes. If it be found a rule that efficiency in 
teaching follows proficiency in scholarship, then, other 
things being equal, the latter may be considered a vital con- 
tribution to the former. And this is our present purpose : 
to discover, so far as possible, what elements enter into the 
making of a capable teacher. Corollary questions are: To 
what extent does proficiency in scholarship mean efficiency 
in teaching? That is, what is the quantitative relation? 
This involves the measurement of scholarship in the vari- 

51 



5 2 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

ous subjects pursued; and the question of the relation of 
these measurements among themselves arises. Again, what 
do the details of the data suggest as to the character of the 
measurements used? 

This study is confined to elementary teachers only; that 
is, those below the high school/ A study of high school 
teachers would probably give different results, since there 
can be little doubt that scholarship enters more directly into 
the success of the high school teacher, who usually deals 
more with particular subject-matter and less with general 
human nature than the teacher in the elementary school. 

This study, also, does not attempt to ascertain fully just 
what does constitute teaching efficiency. Of the many pos- 
sible factors — health, personality, favorable environment, 
etc. — which determine success in teaching, only one, ability 
in academic and professional studies, is investigated. The 
present study seeks the relations between (i) those mental 
traits which are measured by Normal School records of 
scholarship, and (2) the ability to teach as measured by one 
who allows for favorable or unfavorable conditions. 

2. General Conclusions Reached. 

The more important general conclusions reached in this 
study may be briefly stated as follows : 

I . The correlations ^ found are low. Taking together 
the 92 relationships calculated herein between teaching effi- 
ciency and scholarship in various subjects, the narrow mode, 
that point in the series containing the greatest number of 

1 The data studied include one exception, viz., School F, but these 
marks are considered separately. 

2 The reader unacquainted with the modern methods of estimating 
relationships should read the chapters on " Correlation " in Bowley's 
Elements of Statistics, Davenport's Statistical Methods, or Thorndike's 
Mental and Social Measurements. 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 53 

frequencies, is at the zero point, which means no correla- 
tion. Widen this mode so that it will include half the 
cases, and it then lies between .000 and .337, with the 
median at .175.. When we consider that the Normal Schools 
are strictly technical schools — or at least so intended — this 
low correlation between the theory as given in the school 
and the art as practiced outside is rather surprising. 

2. The relation between the practice teaching within the 
school and actual teaching outside the training school is 
comparatively high, viz., .443. 

3. The data lend support to the claim so generally made, 
especially in Normal Schools, that the ability developed in 
the study of psychology contributes much to one's success 
in teaching. This subject stands next to that of practice 
teaching, viz., .418. This is in accord with the opinion 
and experience of Normal School instructors from the first 
impulse made by Cyrus Pierce in Lexington (1839) to the 
present. But, as shown in Chapter II, the study of psychol- 
ogy has been constantly mingled with the history and prin- 
ciples of education, independently of which it cannot be well 
considered. Hence, in this stud)^ consideration is given to 
these various studies combined, called " Professional." As 
such, the correlation is lowered to .336, but still ranks 
second. 

4. The question as to the relative value of studies in sub- 
ject-matter itself, and studies in the methods of teaching 
such subjects, receives a suggestion. In fourteen pairs of 
such relations studied, ten result in favor of the academic, 
i. e., the subject-matter work. The differences, however, 
are slight, as indicated in the following figures. These fig- 
ures express in thousandths the differences in the coefiEicients 
of correlation in favor of academic work : .043, .099, .039. 
.030, .020, .137, .059, .246, .193, .084. The differences in 



54 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

favor of methods are: .054, .052, .149, .072. In one of 
the city training schools there is evidence to this same effect. 
Examinations also show that abihty in academic subjects 
contributes more to successful teaching than ability in 
courses in methods. 

5. The question of the efficiency of examinations as tests 
of ability to teach was studied. The results, however, are 
not satisfactory, because of the peculiar data used. But, so 
far as the present study goes, the evidence is against the 
efficiency of examinations as tests of ability to teach. In 
two schools considered, the correlations between teaching- 
efficiency and examination records are distinctly negative. 
In the third school the coefficient is below .20. 

6. The order in closeness of relationship to teaching effi- 
ciency of the four branches of study, considered in two 
aspects, academic and methods, is as follows : 

English Methods. 

Science. " 

Hisitory Academic. 

English 

Mathematics Methods. 

Science Academic. 

Mathematics " 

History Methods. 

These are the leading conclusions as to the correlations 
calculated. In this study the question of marking, i. e., 
grading, could not be entirely avoided. The systems of 
marking used in the various schools indicate carelessness in 
this particular and a need of improvement in method. This 
is discussed at the close of the chapter, and suggestions are 
given for another system of measuring mental traits. 

This inaccuracy in grading, both in the subjects studied 
and in teaching efficiency, results in an " attenuation " of 
all the coefficients of correlation, as has been shown by 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 55 

Spearman/ As the data for this study were gathered be- 
fore his paper had shown the need of two independent 
measures for every trait to be related, I am not able to cor- 
rect my results for the attenuations due to chance error. 
There is no reason to believe that the relative closeness 
of relationship to teaching efficiency of the different abili- 
ties measured would be altered if the Spearman correction 
could be made. 

Method of Study 
I. Data Collected. 

The materials used consist of records of teachers from 
the following institutions : 

1. Five representative Normal Schools of Massachusetts 
and New York: 

School A — 155 graduates. 
" B— 105 

" c- 55 

" D— 89 
" E— 102 

2. Two Normal Colleges. 

School F — 45 graduates. 
" G- 97 

3. Two city training schools. 

School H — 157 graduates. 
" I- 52 

4. One educational department of a university. 

School J — 222 students. 

5. Three Ohio cities. 

School K — 106 teachers. 
Total number of individuals studied — 1,185. 

^ American Journal of Psychology, Jan., 1904. 



56 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

The following table (III) shows the subjects in which 
marks have been secured in the various schools. For ex- 
ample, the Y in column A opposite Psycholog}^ indicates 
that I have records of individual students in Psychology at 
school A. The Math. Ac, Science Ac. etc., indicate acad- 
emic work in these four branches, distinct from the usual 
method work given in Normal Schools. Grades in both 
phases are used in this investigation. The term " Educa- 
tion " found in schools B and C means History of Educa- 
tion, Philosophy of Education, School Economy, etc., given 
in one course as found in some Normal Schools, or not 
easily distinguished here. It would, however, doubtless be 
safe to consider these two cases as History of Education 
in comparisons made, and I have so done in the calculations. 
The marks for Mathematics, Science, History, and English 
are made up from marks in the individual subjects in these 
branches, e. g., Mathematics includes Arithmetic, Algebra, 
Geometry. The last five branches mentioned refer to acad- 
emic work preparatory to the work in the training school. 
The marks in school K are upon local examinations for 
teachers' certificates. The number of marks in the various 
subjects taken and upon teaching will average about twenty 
for each individual. This means about 25,000 (over 24,- 
000) records used in this investigation. 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP cj 

TABLE III 

Schools A B C D E F G H I J K 

Teaching Y Y Y Y Y Y 

" Instruction. Y Y 

Discipline.. Y Y 

City Exam. 
" Hist. Prin. .... Y Y 

" Methods Y Y 

" Total Y Y 

Practice Teach. .... Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Psychology YYYYYY YYY 

Educ. Psy. Y 

Hist, of Ed. Y YYY ^ Y Y 

"Education" Y Y Y 

Mathematics YYYYYY Y Y 

Math. Ac YYY 

Science YYYYYY Y Y 

Science Ac. YYY 

History YYYYYY Y Y 

History Ac. Y Y Y 

English YYYYYY Y Y 

English Ac. YYY 

Art Y Y 

Man. Train. Y Y 

Gymnastics Y 

Academic work prior 
to training school 
work. 

Mathematics ■ Y Y 

Science Y Y 

History Y Y 

English Y Y 

Mod. Lang. Y 

2. Character of Data. 

It must be frankly admitted at the outset that a strictly 
scientific treatment of the problem in hand is handicapped 
by the very nature of the data used. We have a strictly 
quantitative measure for land in the " foot-front " or acre, 
for coal in the ton or car-load. These are absolute meas- 
ures and are universal. Not so in the measurement of 
scholarship or teaching efficiency. These are mental traits 



58 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

to which physical measurements do not apply. Yet in 
almost all phases of educational work amounts of mentality 
are commonly expressed in some form of units of measure. 
Examinations are marked 98%, 86%, 37%, etc.; or by let- 
ters A, B, B — , C, C — , D, etc. ; or by numbers i, 2, 3, etc. ; 
or by words " excellent," " good," " poor," etc. Various 
are the terms used, not only in examinations, but in daily 
recitations, in written work of all forms, as symbols of 
impressions of teaching efficiency and of general scholarship. 

These " marks " are commonly accepted as good meas- 
ures, and they are commonly understood. Only in critical 
cases are these marks called in question, when it is seen 
that the same " mark " given by different individuals does 
not measure the same amount of mentality. 98% given 
by one teacher may mean the same as 86% given by an- 
other; an " A " student under one instructor is only a " B " 
student as marked by another. Further, and as a conse- 
quence of what has just been said, any " mark " is not a 
measure of the student's absolute mental ability, but is 
rather an expression of an individual's estimate of that 
ability. It is, in the last analysis, a personal opinion, rather 
than a universal measure. 

Yet, in spite of these real difficulties, we had best use 
" marks," for they are practically the only available meas- 
ures at present of mentality. This investigation makes use 
of such "marks," though tentatively, as approximations to 
true measures of ability, if treated as determining the order 
of merit. Conclusions reached from such data will be sub- 
ject to less criticism by reason of the two facts mentioned, 
vis., these " marks " are commonly accepted as an adequate 
measure, and these " marks " are commonly understood, 
though not with great accuracy. Time and experience may 
develop a standard of measurement of various mental traits, 
as the foot and ton in physical measurements. 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 59 

J. Method of Securing Data. 

1. Marks for teaching efficiency. 

There are very few school systems where we find the 
teachers graded on the efficiency of their work. (This is 
done in practice work in training schools, but seldom in 
actual school work.) If each principal or superintendent 
marked his teachers, as these teachers mark their pupils, we 
would have at hand an estimate of the teaching power of 
each. But such is not the case. Any attempt to secure this 
estimate from the principals of 1,185 teachers scattered 
throughout three states or more, or to inquire into the actual 
work done by these teachers, would be an almost insur- 
mountable task. Another method was taken. Principals 
of Normal Schools usually follow quite closely the work of 
their graduates. The estimate of such men is probably the 
best available mark for teaching efficiency. This is the 
mark used in this study. 

In selecting the individuals, the roll of classes graduating 
between 1898 and 1902, inclusive, was taken. The indi- 
viduals were taken in order, in so far as the principal of the 
school had followed the work of the graduate sufficiently to 
be ready to estimate the efficiency of the teaching. All 
others were discarded. 

The above method was used for schools A-F, inclusive. 
For the graduates of schools G and H, marks are given by 
the principals of the schools in which such graduates are 
teaching. I have no records of the teaching of graduates 
of schools I and J. Their practice teaching only was avail- 
able. Marks for school K were given by the superinten- 
dents of the three schools respectively. 

2. Marks for scholarship. 

These marks were secured for each of the 1,185 i^^i- 
1 Mental and Physical Tests, Psy. Rev. Monograph, iii. no. 6, p. 35. 



6o NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

viduals in the various subjects pursued in the schools, or 
upon examination. As ah'eady said, the mark in Mathe- 
matics is the combined marks of whatever subjects are 
found in that branch. In most of the Normal Schools, these 
are Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry. This combined mark 
is not the exact " average " of the other marks, but is rather 
the probable " mode," which is a truer mark.^ 

Note. — Wissler, in considering students' marks in Columbia Univer- 
sity, takes as the standing for the year the " sum of the products of the 
grades and ithe number of course hours divided by the total number of 
such hours, or the average grade per course hours." ^ While this 
method of exact average is doubtless well used in this case, the "mode" 
seems preferable where the marks cover a wider range and are less 
regular. 

4. Method of Treatment. 

(i) Coefficients of correlation. 

With these " marks " as measures of intellectual powers 
in various subjects of study and of efficiency in teaching, 
the question is as to their relations, particularly the relation 
between teaching efficiency and scholarship in the various 
branches of study. If the work of the Normal Schools and 
teachers' colleges is to equip the individual for efficient 
teaching, it is important to know what subjects of study 
contribute to this end, and to what relative extent they do 
so. This calls for measurements of specific mental powers, 
and of the extent to which an individual's station in one 
corresponds to his station in others. 

This is done by a method based on that of Pearson's co- 
efficient of correlation.^ This method is not one of abso- 

1 Thorndike, Educational Psychology, 166, and Lecture Notes, 1903- 
1904. 

2 This method is fully described in Pearson's Grammar of Science, 
pp. 392-402 ; also in Thorndike's Educational Psychology and his Mental 
and Social Measurements. 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 6i 

lute amount of condition or of change. It is a measure of 
mental relationship, of the amount of excess or deficiency 
in relation to the central tendency of various relationships. 
The index or coefficient of correlation marks the degree of 
relationship. This may vary from + ioo%, which is per- 
fect correspondence, to — ioo%, which is perfect opposi- 
tion. "A correlation of +62% would mean that . . . any 
given station in the one trait would imply 62 hundredths of 
that station in the other. A coefficient of — 62% would, 
of course, mean that any degree of superiority would in- 
volve 62 hundredths as much inferiority, and vice versa.'' ^ 
This only means that the higher the correlation, the miore 
certain we can be that high scholarship in the given sub- 
ject is essential in efficient teaching; that a given efficiency 
in one is connected with proficiency in the other to the ex- 
tent indicated by the index of correlation. Pearson speaks 
of the increase in correlation as the " transition of correla- 
tion into causation. Causation tells us that B will accom- 
pany A ; correlation tells us the proportion of cases in which 
B accompanies." ^ 

One statement only needs to be made as to the method 
of securing the index of correlation. The Pearson coeffi- 
cient is obtained by the following process : ^ Find the sum 
of the products of the deviations of one class by the devia- 
tions associated therewith in the other class ; divide this 
sum by the product of the Standard Deviation of one class 
multiplied by the Standard Deviation of the other class, 
multiplied by the whole number of cases. This is ex- 
pressed by the formula : 

1 Thorndike, Mental and Social Measurements, p. 123. 

2 Grammar of Science, p. 397. 

3, See Pearson's Grammar of Science, p. 400; Davenport, Statistical 
Methods, p. 32; Thorndike, Educational Psychology, p. 26. 



62 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



r = ^^-y 

The deviations have in all cases been calculated accord- 
ing to the hypothesis that the relative position of individuals 
marked by the same person is given by their marks, and 
that the distributions of the abilities studied approximate the 
so-called normal type. The amounts of the marks thus 
have no influence more than to determine within any one 
school the relative abilities of the individuals. The second 
part of this hypothesis is by no means secure, but any other 
way of treating the marks would make little difference in 
the resulting coefficients of correlation. 

The large amount of arithmetical work required in finding 
2x.y, <Ti, and ^1, is much lessened by a transmutation table 
given by Professor Thorndike.^ By this method the follow- 
ing (Table IV) is an illustration of the treatment of each 
correlation. The top line of the table proper, exclusive of the 
figures in italics, reads : The 40 students ranking highest 
in scholarship in professional studies ranked in teaching 
efficiency as follows: 17 in the highest group, 14 in the 
next highest, 4 in the third, 4 in the fourth and i in the 
lowest group. 

TABLE IV 

TEACHING EFFICIENCY 



Scholarship i 


in 


1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


Totals 


Percent 


<7/I00 


Professional 


1 


17 


14 


4 


4 


I 


40 


= 


9 


+ 181 


Studies 


2 


20 


20 


14 


4 




58 


= 


13 


+ 103 




3 


24 


47 


27 


14 


6 


118 


= 


25 


+ 41 




4 


12 


40 


38 


14 


8 


112 


= 


24 


— 23 




5 


10 


20 


30 


II 


5 


76 


= 


16 


— 82 




6 


5 


7 


II 


7 


7 


37 


= 


8 


—135 




7 


3 


4 


9 


8 


I 


25 


= 


S 


—210 


Totals 




91 


152 


133 


62 


28 


466 








Per cent. 




20 


33 


28 


13 


6 










Stand. Dev. 


4 


-140 


+36 


—45 - 


-117 - 


■199 











1 Mental and Social Measurements, pp. 89-94. 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 63 

The products are : 









+ 


— 


17 X -f-140 X +181 = 


430780 




20 




+103 =^ 


288400 




24 




+ 41 = 


137760 




12 




- 23 = 




38640 


10 




- 82-- 




I 14800 


s 




—135 = 




94500 


3 




— 210 = 




88200 


14 X + 36 X +181 = 


91224 




20 




+103 = 


74160 




47 




+ 41 = 


69372 




40 




— 23 = 




33120 


20 




- 82=- 




59040 


7 




—135 = 




34020 


4 




—210 = 




30240 


4 X 


- 45 


X -hi8i = 




32580 


14 




+ 103 = 




64890 


27 




— 41 = 




44280 


38 




— 23 = 


39330 




30 




— 82-- 


I 10700 




II 




—135 = 


66825 




9 




—210 = 


85050 




4X 


—117 X +181 = 




84708 


4 




+103 = 




48204 


14 




+ 41 = 




67158 


14 




- 2^ = 


37674 




II 




— 82 = 


105534 




7 




—135 = 


I 10565 




8 




—210 = 


196560 




I X 


—199 


X +181 = 




36019 


6 




+ 41 - 




48954 


8 




— 2Z = 


36616 




5 




— 82 = 


81590 




7 




-135 = 


18805s 




I 




—210 = 


41790 






2191985 919353 






466) 


919353 






1272632(273 






r = .273 








P. E. 


of r = .027 
n = 466 






Note— The above calculations are such that tt 


ve products should show four decimal 


places. These have been inserted 


I in the final result. 





64 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

The above method has been followed in the one hundred 
and twenty tables used. In a few tables the group method 
has been used to save difficulties and to avoid errors which 
would probably have been greater than by the method used. 
The method without grouping is probably the more accu- 
rate, since it gives more attention to individual cases. The 
difference, however, is very slight ; for example, in one table 
the two methods bring as the index of correlation .209 and 
.208. In the few groupings made, care was taken to group 
about the centre and avoid any such changes at the ex- 
tremes. 

(2) Method of combining schools. 

It is already apparent that the method used in this study 
is that of working out individual correlations in various 
schools. In so doing, the measure of relationship (indi- 
cated by the index of correlation) between any two abilities 
is found to vary in the different schools. For example, the 
indices of correlation between efficiency in teaching and the 
"professional " work in the Normal Schools are .273, .431, 
.018, .241, .568. This difference is due to the difference 
in the number of cases used in each, to different standards 
of marking in the various schools, to actual differences in 
the relation; and there may be other causes. It would, 
doubtless, be desirable to use data drawn from all these 
schools subjected to the same measurements in each of the 
two characteristics compared. This is obviously impossible, 
since the ratings for each individual considered must come 
from his own school. We have no " rule " to measure the 
mental stature of all. In another section ^ of this chapter 
the averages of these various relations have been worked 
out, which may stand as representing the relation between 

1 Pages 71, 72. 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 65 

any two traits studied. These averages are of the indices 
only, as indicated on pages 71, y2. Another method which 
might have been used is that of combining the whole num- 
ber of cases in the various schools. This is used in the 
illustration of method on pages 65-67. 

The use of the percentage system in grading may be- 
properly considered as a marking by relative positions. 
For example, if the marks in a given school in a particular 
class have a range from 59 per cent, to 96 per cent., we 
may regard the class as divided into 38 groups, arranged 
in consecutive order, from the best to the poorest in the 
trait thus measured. As said above, not all the grades be- 
tween 59 and 96 may be used. In that case, the number 
of groups is reduced by the number of grades omitted. Did 
all schools use a system of grading that would give the 
same number of groups in each class thus rated, to combine 
the marks of the different schools would be simple. For 
example, the grades in arithmetic in two given classes may 
be as follows : 

(i) 96, 93, 91, 90, 89, 88, 85, 80, 78, 75, 68, 65. 
(2) 98. 95. 92, 90. 88, 85, 82, 80, 70, 65, 60, 50. 
Rank i, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. 
and be thus divided into twelve groups according to rela- 
tive position. The individual (or individuals) in school 
( I ) who stands 93 has the same relative position as the in- 
dividual in school (2) who stands 95; that is, both stand 
second highest in the class. In such case, the measures in 
the two schools are easily comparable: by transposing the 
given grades to the standing in relative position, indicated 
by the series i to 12. 

In case one school used twice as many grades as the 
other, two grades may be combined in one rank. For 
example. 



66 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

(3) 96. 90, 85, 82, 80, 78, 75, 70. 

(4) 98, 92, 85, 80, 75, 65, 60, 50. 
95, 89, 82, 77, 70, 62, 55, 40. 

Rank i, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 
That is, school (4) has used a group system of twice the 
number used by school (3). A larger unit of measure (in 
this case 8 groups instead of 16) will place 98 and 95 in 
the first rank, 92 and 89 in the second rank, etc. It 
may seem that the bunching should be at the centre — the 
mode representing the central tendency — since here a slight 
change has less effect, and this will be used to some extent 
shortly. But when we consider the relative position only, 
and apply a larger unit of measure, the 98 and 95 seem to 
belong to the first class ; so 50 and 40 to the lowest class. 

In case, however, the number of groups in one is not an 
exact multiple of the other, a somewhat different method 
is to be used. Here a partial grouping at the centre is to 
play a part. That is, so far as possible, the groups of the 
larger are to be evenly combined to correspond to the series 
of a smaller number of groups. But whenever inequality 
is to exist, the central groups are to receive the more. The 
following, taken from the data for A6, B6, C6, D6, E6, is 
an example : 

12345 
12345 
1.2 3.4 5.6 7.8 9.10 
I 2.3 4.5 6.7 8 

1-3 4-7 8-1 1 12-15 16-18. 
The bunching at the centre may be illustrated by the fol- 
lowing, taken from. tables lA, iB, iC, lE: 

School E (5 groups) 12345 

" C (8 " ) I 23-67 8 

" B (17 " ) I 2 3-15 16 17 

" A (10 " ) I 23-89 10, 



School 


E 


(5 groups) 


<( 


D 


(5 ' 


" ) 


" 


A 


(10 ' 


" ) 


" 


C 


(8 ' 


' ) 


" 


B 


(18 ' 


" ) 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 67 

The two methods of grouping give practically no dif- 
ferences in results, c. g., the index of correlation in a sample 
case (see Table V) is .288 by the former method and .296 
by the latter. Comparing the indices obtained from grouped 
results with the average indices from the five schools, we 
find the former slightly higher. 















TABLE 


V 


















TABLE I 


ABCE 








TABLE I 


ABCE 


(I) 








I 


2 


3 


4 


5 






i 


^ 


3 


4 


5 




I 


10 


II 


7 






28 


I 


9 


8 


5 






22 


2 


16 


21 


4 


3 




44 


2 


II 


12 


7 


I 




31 


3 


12 


30 


13 


7 




63 


3 


6 


17 


18 


I 




42 


4 


21 


42 


n 


17 




162 


4 


13 


17 


19s 


7 


3 


23s 


5 


2 


5 


18 


II 




40 


5 


2 




II 


4 


3 


20 


6 




4 


7 


2 




18 


6 




I 


8 


2 


I 


12 


7 


10 


II 


8 


II 




44 


7 


9 


s 


16 


6 


I 


Z1 




71 


124 


134 


51 
r 


19 


399 
.288 




SO 


60 


260 


21 

r 


8 


399 
.296 



(3) Tables of distribution. 

The tables of distribution are in themselves of much im- 
portance. For example, compare the facts for schools A 
and D in teaching and " professional." 

The arrays are as follows, expressed in percentage of the 
total number of cases : 

In teaching — 

School A — 4, 7, 22, 16, 20, 19, 6, 3, 3, I. 
" D' — 16, 16, 36, 2, 5, 4, 4, 2, 8, 2, 4. 

In " professional " — 

School A— I, 3, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 6, 5, 17, 4, 5, 9, 7, 6, 4, 4. 
D— 32, 21, 21, 13, 13. 

It is evident in the first two arrays that school D marks 
teaching efficiency much higher than school A, while in the 
second group of arrays, the characteristic difference is the 



68 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



scale of marking-: school A makes close distinctions, while 
school D covers only a short range, making but five groups. 

Interpretation and Discussion of Results 

I. General Explanation of Tables and Tabular View of 
Indices. 
The following are the correlations made : * 
No. I . Teaching and Psychology. 



" 2. 


« 


(( 


History and Principles of Educa- 
tion. 


" 3- 


<( 


(( 


"Professional" (No. i and No. 2). 


" 4. 


" 


t( 


Practice Teaching. 


" 5. 


« 


(( 


Mathematics. 


" 5-1. 


(( 


t( 


" (academic). 


" 5-2. 


" 


" 


" (secondary). 


" 6. 


a 


<( 


Science. 


" 6-1. 


« 


(( 


" (academic). 


" 6-2. 


" 


e( 


" (secondary). 


" 7. 


a 


" 


History. 


" 7-1. 


(( 


(( 


" (academic). 


" 7-^' 


" 


« 


" (secondary). 


" 8. 


" 


" 


English. 


" 8-1. 


« 


" 


" (academic). 


" 8-2. 


<( 


a 


" (secondary). 


" 9. 


(( 


" 


Modern Language (secondary). 


" lO. 


(( 


" 


"Methods" (5, 6, 7, 8). 


" II. 


(( 


(( 


"Academic" (5-1, 6-1, 7-1, 8-1). 


" 12. 


« 


(( 


Practice Teaching and " Methods." 


" 13. 


(( 


(( 


Practice Teaching and Academic. 


" 14. 


" 


(( 


General Average. 


" 15. 


(( 


(( 


Art. 


" 16. 


ti 


(( 


Manual Training. 


1 For indices of correlation, see tabular view in Table VI. 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 



69 



No. 17. Teaching- and Gymnasium. 
" 18. " " City Examination in Methods. 

" 19. " " City Examination in History and 

Principles of Education. 
" 20. " " "Total" (18, 19). 

" 21. Practice Teaching and Psychology. 



22. 


" 


« 


u 


Educational Psychology. 


23- 


« 


t( 


« 


Psychology and Educa- 
tional Psychology. 


24. 








History and Principles of 
Education. 


25- 


« 


a 


<< 


"Professional" (21, 22, 
24). 


26. 


(( 


(I 


C( 


Mathematics. 


27. 


(( 


" 


" 


Science. 


28. 


(( 


if 


" 


History. 


29. 


(( 


t( 


" 


English. 


30- 


(( 


u 


" 


"Methods" (26-29). 


31- 


" Professional " 


and 


" Methods." 



32. Average in Secondary Schools and Average in 

Training Schools. 

33. Average in Secondary Schools and Average in 

City Examinations. 

34. Average in Training- Schools and Average in 

City Examinations. 

35. " Professional " and Average in City Examina- 

tions. 

36. " Instruction " and " Discipline." 

37. A, B, C, E. Teaching and Psychology (four 

schools combined). 

38. A, B, C, E. Teaching and Psychology (four 

schools combined). 

39. A-E. Teaching- and "Professional" five schools 

combined). 



70 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



The seven different schools, or groups of teachers studied, 
are designated by letters A, B, etc., to J. Thus, 4 D is the 
correlation between teaching and practice teaching in school 
D. Most of the measures of scholarship are in terms of 
the old standard per cent, mark, ranging from 100 down- 
ward. Not all these are consecutive, since in a group of 
one hundred individuals some may be graded 86, 87, 90, 
91, but none 88, 89. These breaks in the series do not in- 
terfere with the method, which emphasizes relative position 
rather than absolute standing. School D uses i, 2, 3, in all 
grades except the mark for teaching efficiency. Other 
schools use letters A, B, C, etc. These mark relative posi- 
tions only. In such schools these marks take the place of 
percents in the series. Still another form is used in some 
of the series: e. g., 1-2, 2-3, A-B, B-C. These result from 
making averages of two or more marks. For example, the 
average of grades i and 2 give the grade 1-2; of B and C, 
the grade B-C. School H has a special mark used, which 
will be explained when that table is studied (see page 99). 

In table VI is given a tabular view of the indices of cor- 
relation for the various relations studied in the different 
schools designated by the letters at the top. In each case 
the index is expressed in thousandths. The few cases of 
negative correlation are expressed by the — sign. 

In column X is given the averages of the several schools 
taken together in the various subjects. These averages are 
obtained by weighting the individual indices according to 
the number of cases studied in each. An approximation for 
the various schools gives the following relation of weight : ^ 
A, 3 ; B, 2 ; C. I ; D, 2 ; E, 2 ; F, I ; G, I ; H, 3 ; I, I ; J, 3. 

Thus, in number i we have : 

1 See number of cases per school, p. 55. 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP yi 

Not Weighted Weight Weighted 

A 332 3 996 

B 417 2 834 

C ■ 004 I 004 

E 546 2 1092 

The average of the not-weighted is 325; of the weighted, 
366. The difference is but httle, but the latter is taken to 
be nearer the true average. Vacant places in the tabular 
view indicate the absence of the marks needed for such 
correlations in those schools. 

TABLE VI 



Subjects correlated 
with Teaching. 



Psychology 

Hist. & Prin. of Education 

" Professional " 

Practice Teaching • 

Mathematics 

Methods 

Academic ■ 

Preparatory Exam... 
Science 

Methods ■ 

Academic ■ 

Preparatory Exam..^ 
History 

Methods 

Academic ■ 

Preparatory Exam... 
English 

Methods 

Academic 

Preparatory Exam.. 

Modern Language 

"Methods" 

"Academic" 

Practice Teach. & Meth. 
Practice Teach. & Acad. 

General Average 

Art 

Manual Training 

Gymnasium 

(City Examination) 

History & Principles 

Methods 

Total (Exam.) 



A 


B 


C 


D 


E 


F 


G 


H 


I 


J 


K 


X 


Y 


332 


417 


004 


000 


546 














366 


366 


20q 


374 


-039 


233 


405 


-130 












24' 


270 


s 


431 


018 
100 


241 
4SI 


Sb8 


46s 




002 
02s 








256 

28s 


331 

386 


221 


250 

293 


-116 
-017 


010 
049 


310 


279 




084 
114 






280 


158 
133 


168 
133 


361 


271 

217 


009 


120 
140 


402 


015 




037 
274 






124 


215 
145 


297 
145 


004 


383 

442 


osi 


-130 
116 


349 






013 
206 






095 


105 
233 


164 
233 


3S3 


473 
381 


030 
-119 


I3S 
iSi 


4S3 


304 




044 

-028 
118 






225 


261 
189 


321 
189 


290 


423 
420 


-02s 

OOP 


140 
035 


473 


241 




213 








24S 
219 


291 
224 


359 




054 
-021 

029 
-108 


293 
251 


225 

l2i 


36b 


-076 
-016 
-001 


^87 

-224 

160 
-045 






- 


298 
251 

225 

315 


286 
160 

160 
141 

1 

1 
i 
1 



418 

.U4 
366 
443 

200 
171 



326 



I 176 



72 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 
TABLE Yl— Continued 



H 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

^7 

28 
29 

30 



Subjects correlated with 
Practice Teaching 



Psychology 

Educational Psy. . . . 
Psy. & Educ. Psy. • 
Hist. & Prin. of Ed, 

" Professional" 

Mathematics 

Science 

History 

English 

Methods 



A 


C 


B 


F 


H 


I 


J 


386 


444 








451 

,SI7 


240 
350 


388 


343 


334 


189 


427 


581 


194 


























3(54 














210 


527 


395 


276 


536 


346 


556 


332 



382 



381 



416 



31 "Professional" A 571 

correlated with B 469 

Methods C 689 

D 436 

E 645 

H 453 

I 721 

J 324 

Special for school H 

32 Average secondary and average in Training School 278 

33 Average secondary and examination (city) 254 

34 Average in Training School and examination (city) 443 

35 "Professional" in Train. Sch. and examination (city) 408 

36 Instruction and Discipline (city marks) 654 



2. General View of the Correlations. 

In considering the relation between teaching and scholar- 
ship in the various subjects, it is seen that the correlation is 
of a very wide range, from .568 in 3 E, to — .224 in 18 H; 
but that the general run is low. The average of the aver- 
ages in column X is .176. This may be more accurately 
expressed in the following series and the corresponding fre- 
quencies. The 92 relationships made with teaching, as 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 



73 



given in the tabular view (table VI), may be arranged in 
1 6 groups, each covering .05, as indicated in the series. 
{These do not include school K, the data for which were 
secured after these calculations were made.) 



eries. 


Frequency. 


Series. 


Frequency. 


55 


I 


15 


6 


50 


2 


10 


4 


45 


8 


5 


2 


40 


6 





22 


35 


8 


—5 


3 


30 


7 


—10 


7 


25 


8 


—15 


I 


20 


6 


—20 


I 



Here the narrow mode is at .00, i. e., no correlation, while 
even a larger mode covering half the cases lies between .00 
and .337. The average is .18 and the median .175. Ac- 
cording to Spearman,^ a " probable error " of .05 may be 
admitted in the correlations. Further, if the quotient found 
by dividing the index of correlation by the " probable 
error " equals 5 or more, it is practically certain that the 
relation is not one of mere chance. In case the quotient is 
5, chance occurrence is only i out of 1,249.^ Now if the 
upper limit of the mode covering slightly more than half 
the cases is only .337, and the probable error is about 
.05, we have not a very favorable condition in the corre- 
lations.^ 

The 26 relations made with practice teaching show a 
higher correlation. Here the range is from .581 to .063, 
expressed in the following series of 1 2 groups : 

^ American Journal of Psychology, xv, loi. 

2 American Journal of Psychology, xv, 76. 

3 Several were figured out showing probable error often high, making 
quotient much less than 5. 



74 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



Series. 


Frequency. 


Series. 


Frequency 


60 


2 


30 


2 


55 


2 


25 


I 


50 


I 


20 


3 


45 


3 


15 





40 


3 


10 





35 


8 


5 


I 



Here the important mode is .35. The average is .365. 
The significance of these higher correlations will be con- 
sidered later. 

A few comparisons with other correlations are interest- 
ing and suggestive/ 



English 

History 

Science 

Algebra 

Drawing 

German 

French 

Latin 

Av. (without drawing) 



O 

65 
49 i 
62 
52 
06 

33 I 

38 

49 



X* 




^ 


c 


<u 


-M 






fc 


kJ 


49 


62 


58 


43 




54 


68 


54 


1 30 


01 


33 


38 


51 


50 



Here the range is from .65 down to .01, with an average 
of about .46. Other correlations between various acad- 
emic subjects, given in Thorndike's Educational Psychol- 
ogy, on page 37, are slightly lower than the ones just quoted. 

These comparisons are cited here merely to point out 
more emphatically the low correlation found in the relation 
between teaching efficiency and the various branches of 
study and examinations taken in preparation for that work. 

1 A study by Parker of 245 first-year high school students, quoted by 
Thomdike in his Educational Psychology, p. 36. 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 



75 



It may not be surprising to note that in the most favorable 
case — Teaching- and " Professional " in school E — teaching 
ability and ability in psychology as taught there are iden- 
tical to the extent shown by a coefficient of .56; but it is 
certainly surprising that in the history of education, as 
given in school H, there is a negative correlation to the 
extent of .224; and perhaps even more surprising that the 
MODE including about half the number of all the cases lies 
between no correlation at all and .337. The significance 
of these low correlations must be considered later. 

We should note also another general aspect of these cor- 
relations. Column X in the tabular view gives the aver- 
ages of the correlations for the various subjects through the 
different schools (I and J have no correlation with teach- 
ing) . It is obvious that these amounts are greatly reduced 
by reason, of the low correlations of the two schools, C and 
H, and somewhat modified by the fluctuations in school F. 
School C is one of the five State Normal Schools (A, B, 
C, D, E), but school H is a city training school. It may 
be well to note the changes in the average correlations when 
schools H and F are omitted from consideration, for the 
following reasons : 

School H is not of exactly the same class as the others. 
I need not enter into a careful differentiation between state 
Normal Schools and city training schools. No estim.ate of 
their relative worth is here implied, but even a slight con- 
sideration will show that the students are different — one 
class coming from the state at large, the other from a much 
more limited area. Their previous training and experience 
probably makes the age of the former class higher than the 
latter, and age at this period is an important factor. That 
the one school is not of the same class as the other is fur- 
ther seen in that the character of the work of the city train- 
ing school is usually more closely related to the high school 



76 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

work of that city and its work is thus directed to a more 
narrow field. 

The low correlations in this school are perhaps due to the 
peculiar markings in teaching. For example, in the data 
for 3 H we find that, out of 154 cases considered, 56, or 
more than one-third, are put in one class, according to the 
mark for teaching efficiency. This in itself would not be 
so bad were the others distributed according to the normal 
frequency curve. Here is the series: 11, 8, 10, 16, 18, 28, 
56, 6, I. Evidently there is a marked skezu. The char- 
acter of these markings will be considered more at length 
later, but it is evident that the presence of a constant error 
will allow this school to be set aside from the five Normal 
Schools. 

School F gives records of a very special class of college 
graduates only. This is sufficient to set it aside for the 
present. 

Omitting schools F and H, we have in column Y the 
averages for the five State Normal Schools. (The aver- 
ages are again computed by weighting the individual cor- 
relation according to the number of cases considered.) The 
correlations are now raised in all the subjects, when H and 
F are omitted, except one. No. 12; and these averages in 
column Y are possibly better representatives of the true 
relations. 

But the elimination of one other school also may be de- 
sirable. It is noted above that the correlations for school 
C are very low. An examination of the data from this 
school reveals a peculiar characteristic, which is perhaps the 
reason for the low correlation. It must be said that it is 
to be regretted that not more cases were available in this 
school ; yet the peculiar characteristic is so pronounced that 
it is not probable that a larger number would relieve the 
situation. Take, for example, number i C. Of the 54 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 



77 



cases studied 20, or more than one-third, are in the highest 
class with respect to teaching efficiency; while on the side 
of standing in psychology, 27, or just one-half, are in the 
lowest grade. The following table (VII) taken from the 
data from school C shows the strange character. 





TABLE 


VII 










Number in 


Number in 




Number of cases 


highest grade of 


lowest grade of 






teaching efficiency 


various subjects 


I 


54 




20 


27 


2 


52 




19 


9 


3 


52 




19 


9 


4 


54 




20 


16 


5 


43 




17 


12 


5-1 


46 




17 


15 


6 










6-1 


47 




17 


14 


7 










7-1 


50 




18 


4 


8 


54 




20 


26 


8-1 


53 




19 


7 


10 


54 




20 


14 


II 


54 




20 


2 


12 


54 




20 


6 


13 


54 




20 


I 


15 


51 




19 


13 


16 


37 




14 


3 



The striking double skewness here will call for further 
consideration later ; but this is sufficient to make it desirable 
to consider the average correlations, omitting this school. 

The correlation in school D lacks the more constant char- 
acter seen in schools A, B, and E. The marks given here 
for teaching efficiency are somewhat peculiar. Yet the 
error is not so great but that it may for the present be con- 
sidered with the other three Normal Schools. 

If now the correlations in the four schools A, B, D, E, 
be averaged, as before, we have the correlation of column 



yS NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

Z. ( I D has practically no correlation, but is omitted here 
by reason of its peculiar character. The correlations for 
5-1, 6-1, 7-1, 8-1, are necessarily reduced to the single aver- 
age of the two schools B and D. ) The numbers in column 
Z stand as the highest correlations we have between effi- 
ciency in teaching and scholarship in the various subjects 
in the Normal Schools. 

3. More Specific Considerations with Discussion. 

After this general view, we may turn to the consideration 
of more specific relations. It is not our purpose to consider 
here all the relations presented in the data, but only a few 
of the more important. 

(i) Teaching and practice teaching. 

The tabular view (Table VI) shows the highest cor- 
relation to be between efficiency in teaching and practice 
teaching in the training schools (.443). The averages, as 
shown in columns X, Y and Z, show practice teaching high- 
est in all cases save three. These exceptions are in column 
X, where the index is .285. But this is obviously due to 
the exceptionally low correlation in school H, viz : .025. 
Omitting this school because of its peculiarities spoken of 
above, practice teaching heads the list. 

Notice further the relations of practice teaching and 
scholarship in various subjects, as given in 21 to 30. Here, 
in most cases, the correlation is higher. Note particularly 
the high correlations between practice teaching and " meth- 
ods." It would probably be expected that the relation be- 
tween efficiency in practice teaching and scholarship in vari- 
ous subjects would be closer than that between actual teach- 
ing and those subjects; primarily because one pair is within 
the same institution under similar conditions, while the 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP yg 

■other, actual teaching, involves much more complicated con- 
ditions. 

The difference, however, as indicated by the correlations, 
is significant. It means that the professional studies and 
special methods in the various subjects in the Normal 
Schools contribute more directly to teaching under partic- 
ular conditions than to the broader and more complicated 
work of the teacher. The higher correlation (.416) for 
methods and practice teaching compared with that for 
methods and actual teaching (.327) suggests that these 
methods are probably made to fit the particular practice 
teaching, and not the general work required later. 14 and 
34 show a much more striking illustration of this same 
trait. In that case, we have the total work of the school 
correlating high with the special test in examination (.443), 
but exceedingly low in the more general and rigid test in 
actual teaching ( — .087). Just so in the Normal Schools. 
The various subjects of study seem to contribute much to 
efficiency in practice teaching, but considerably less to 
actual teaching; but the correlation between practice teach- 
ing and actual teaching is again comparatively high. This 
means that there is an element in the former that contrib- 
utes directly to the latter. 

Compare the correlations of i to 20 with those of 21 to 
36. It is very clear that the former are lower than the 
latter. Tables i to 20 compare actual teaching with vari- 
ous subjects and examinations. Tables 21 to 36 compare 
various subjects within the school work. This means that 
these subjects do not relate to life as they relate to one an- 
other. School work is not as closely related to the work the 
teacher is later called upon to do as it should be. Practice 
teaching is more closely related to it than are the theoretical 
studies. 



8o NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

The significance of this is that more practice teaching is 
needed in the training of teachers. It is also suggested that 
this practice teaching be as near normal as possible; that is, 
that it be done under conditions as similar as possible to 
those of actual teaching. Schools of practice, as such, are 
liable to be unnatural and abnormal in some particular; 
and to that extent will be like the various subjects in the 
curriculum, of comparatively low correlation with actual 
teaching. 

(2) Teaching and "professional" studies. 

Next to practice teaching and ranking close to it is psy- 
chology (.418). With this should be considered what I 
have called professional studies : history of education, prin- 
ciples of education, school economy, etc. These, taken 
with psychology, have a correlation of .336. 

An observation of the work in " psychology " given in 
the Normal Schools shows clearly that this is not the ana- 
lytic study conducted in colleges and universities. It con- 
sists rather in more general studies in human nature. 
School E shows a high correlation between teaching and 
psychology (.546). But the avowed aim in that particular 
work is not introspective analysis, but a broader outlook 
upon human nature, and especially child nature. 

The significance here is the emphasis upon the contribu- 
tion by those subjects that give breadth of view and general 
principles. The correlation here is higher than that in par- 
ticular subjects. The latter give more specific helps; the 
former, more general enrichment. The data at hand seem 
to be in support of the position that the student who is pre- 
paring for teaching needs to pursue such work as will lead 
him to recognize and study the larger educational problems, 
particularly work that will tend to mature him in thought. 
Most of the 1,185 teachers here considered were probably 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP gj 

not more than twenty years of age when these school rec- 
ords were made. Lack of maturity was probably their 
greatest handicap in their early teaching. There can be 
little doubt, I think, that these professional studies tend to 
develop a maturity in the prospective teacher which the 
work in particular subjects does not. 

(3) "Methods" and "academic" work. 

Normal Schools have been known for their emphasis 
upon specific methods. Many Normal School graduates are 
subjected to grave criticism for their use of cut-and-dried 
methods. Much of this criticism is doubtless unwarranted, 
yet there seems occasion for some such attitude. The fact 
of the immaturity of the prospective teacher spoken of in 
the previous paragraph is probably a reason for this 
" method " work. With this there is a common criticism 
that these same teachers are deficient in a knowledge of 
subject-matter — that their academic work is weak. " Too 
much method work, too little academic work," is a frequent 
comment. 

The question just here is : " What is the relation of 
their contributions to teaching efficiency in the elementary 
schools?" As said in the opening of this chapter, the case 
is probably different from that among high school teachers. 

Taking those schools where marks were obtainable in 
both methods and academic work, we can arrange these 
marks for comparison. 



Methods 


Academic 


.250 


.293 


-.116 


—.017 


.010 


.049 


.084 


.114 


.271 


.217 


.120 


.140 


.037 


.274 


.383 


.442 


—.130 


.116 


.013 


.206 


.473 


.381 


.030 


—.119 


.135 


.151 


.044 


-.028 



-82 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

Difference 
in favor of 
Academic 
+ •043 

+ .0Q9 

+ .039 
+ .030 

—•054 
+ .020 
+ .137 
+.059 
+ .246 
+•193 

—.052 

—.149 
+.084 

— .072 

Thus in the fourteen such cases, ten are in favor of the 
academic work. The differences are, of course, very slight. 
The averages shown in column Z (page 71) for 10 and 11 
show a slight difference in favor of the method work (the 
correlations are .327 and .277 for the four Normal Schools 
only; for all the schools the correlations are .245 and .219). 
In school H 5 to 11 page 71 are given correlations in 
the academic work done in the high school. With one ex- 
ception, that of English (8, no academic), the correlations 
for the academic work are higher than for the methods. 
Yet it must be said that the differences either way are not 
great. In consideration of the stress so often laid upon the 
need of methods, it is important to note how closely related 
to this is the academic work in the various subjects. 

In view of these facts, there seems less occasion to give 
instruction in specific methods. And it is suggested that 
the two phases of the work be given about equal attention; 
or that, if the academic work is made a prerequisite to the 
work in the training school, most of the time in the latter 
be given to the professional studies or to more advanced 
academic work. 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 83 

Data from school H suggest further need of more acad- 
emic work, either as a prerequisite or as a part of the reg- 
ular work. In 34 it is seen that the training-school work 
prepares for examinations, as indicated by the correlation 
.443; but 14 indicates that it does not prepare for actual 
teaching, the correlation being — .087. It is to be noted fur- 
ther that in this same group (33) the academic work in the 
secondary school does not prepare so well for examinations 
(the correlation is .254), but that it does prepare even better 
for teaching (the correlation being .213). It must be said 
that the marks in teaching for group H are subject to 
severe criticism, to be pointed out later. For this reason 
less reliance can be placed upon these figures. So far as 
they go, however, they would lead us to put more emphasis 
upon academic work and less on the special methods. 

(4) Civil service examinations as a test of the capacity to 
teach. 

Civil service examinations for the purpose of testing the 
applicant's qualifications for public service have been used 
in all countries. That examinations serve to stimulate effort 
to make sufficient preparation, and also to eliminate the un- 
qualified, will be questioned by few. Such examinations 
are also applied to test the qualifications of teachers in pub- 
lic schools. 

The problem here is : " Do the data at hand justify such 
examinations ? Do they test the effi-cient teachers and elim- 
inate the unqualified?" The only answer at hand is in the 
correlations between efficiency in teaching and ability in 
various examinations, in three groups : G, H, and K. Two 
groups represent graduates of two city institutions prepar- 
ing students for teaching; the third consists of teachers 
from three cities in Ohio. The records are 5-2, 6-2, 7-2, 
8-2, 18, 19, 20. (See Table VI.) 



84 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

The correlations in i8, 19, and 20, for schools G and H, 
are negative, with one exception; and yet so little negative 
as to be practically zero; i. e., no correlation. If compar- 
ison is made with other correlations in school H (3 to 10) 
it will be seen that these also are practically zero. Thus 
these city examinations, though limited to the two subjects, 
history and principles of education and methods of in- 
struction, correspond quite closely to the work in that city 
training school. With this lack of correlation between the 
examinations and ability to teach, there would seem to be 
no justification for such civil service tests. Yet there is 
certainly about the same justification as for the work of the 
training school. As will 'be pointed out soon, the marks 
for teaching efficiency from schools G and H are such as 
must be used with care ( see page 92 ) . 

Referring to the correlations in school K, somewhat dif- 
ferent relations are found. Mathematics (which means 
Arithmetic only), .280, is higher than all other correlations 
for this subject with two exceptions, and is somewhat 
higher than the averages as seen in columns X, Y, and Z. 
Science and history fall considerably below the averages in 
those subjects, and English compares no more favorably. 
This means that the work done in history, science, and 
English in the training schools contributes more to effi- 
ciency in teaching than the knowledge of these subjects as 
tested by the local examinations. And the correlation in 
mathematics is not so high as to lend much argument in its 
favor. 

Thus the data here used do not afford much justification 
for examinations as a test for capacity to teach. First, the 
indices of correlation are in themselves rather low, ranging 
from .280 to .095, with an average of .196 for school K, 
while for schools G and H the correlations are distinctly 
negative. Again, when comparisons are made, correlations 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 85 

are generally lower than for similar work in the training 
schools. To conclude that the present system of examina- 
tions is not an adequate selective agency in providing effi- 
cient teachers for our elementary schools, is not warranted 
because of the original inaccuracies of the data here studied. 
Yet the facts, so far as they go, seem to point in that direc- 
tion. Here is the whole problem of the value of set exam- 
ination to test qualifications. To solve it, data much more 
complete and accurate are necessary. 

(5) Manual arts. 

Only two schools, C and E,' give measures of ability in 
the manual arts. These are too meager for much argu- 
ment. But it is interesting to note how favorably the cor- 
relations compare with others in the same school. No argu- 
ment is needed to show how ability in fine arts, in manual 
training, including domestic science and domestic art, and 
in gymnastic work, contributes to efficient teaching in ele- 
mentary schools. The few facts presented in 15, 16 and 17 
support this position. 

All the foregoing conclusions are subject to amendment 
by more accurate data. At the time of the collection of the 
measures from the 1,185 students the magnitude of the 
attenuation of correlation produced by chance inaccuracies 
in the original measures was not recognized by statisticians. 
In view of Spearman's study of correlation, I should, if I 
repeated this investigation, take pains to have the teaching 
efficiency of each person rated by several independent 
judges, and to obtain, wherever possible, several grades for 
each person in each trait of scholarship. 

In so far, however, as the conclusions drawn here depend 
upon the relative rather than the absolute magnitudes of 
the indices of correlation (as most of them do), they would 



86 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

probably be little altered by absolutely accurate original 
data. I feel confident that the following statements can be 
made with a high degree of probability. 

(i) Ability in teaching and scholarship in professional 
schools for teachers are related, though not intimately. 

(2) Practice teaching is foremost in its contribution to 
efficiency in teaching and should be carried on in the most 
normal conditions possible. 

(3) Normal School students are doubtless in great need 
of those studies that tend most to mature them in thought 
and that suggest the larger educational problems. These 
are probably those which have been called " professional " 
studies. 

(4) Methods courses do not involve the ability required 
in teaching to any greater extent than more general profes- 
sional courses or than academic studies proper. 

(5) In so far as we can accept the formally expressed 
opinions of school principals with respect to teaching effi- 
ciency, written examinations are an inadequate means of 
licensing and promoting teachers, and are less useful than 
their records in college or training school. 

Such an investigation as this could be made with ease and 
surety if professional schools for teachers gave rational 
grades in scholarship and kept accurate records of the suc- 
cess in teaching of their graduates. How far the existing 
records are from this is worth knowing and is the topic of 
the next section. 

(6) Methods of grading. 

In this section I shall make some severe criticisms of the 
methods of grading in vogue in Normal Schools. This 
does not, however, mean that Normal Schools are specially 
at fault. High school, college, and perhaps civil service 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 87 

gradings will probably be found upon examination to be 
equally thoughtless. 

One who examines the marks used by individual teachers 
and principals, the marks in various schools and in different 
states, is quickly led to the conclusion that there is no uni- 
form measure and seemingly no effort to work together. 
Each uses his own method, which is supposed to be adapted 
to a particular purpose determined by the locality and char- 
acter of the school. But if marks are of any service, they 
are not simply a record for the individual, but must serve 
as a communicable measure. And this seems the greatest 
service. Marks should so measure one's mental trait that 
they will be intelligible to others, and also serve as a means 
of comparing different mental traits. To discover such a^ 
unit of measure will contribute much to educational work. 

The facts concerning grading- found in the present study 
suggest two leading considerations. Many schools and 
teachers show a distinct tendency to mark high. As 
pointed out above, marks for efficiency in teaching are 
given by principals of Normal Schools and by principals 
and superintendents of schools. The character of these 
marks can be best seen. by noting the form of distribution 
in various cases, as follows : 

I C. A B-f B B— C+ C C— D 
20 5 7 I 9732 

I D. 100, 95, 90, 85, 80, 75, 70, 60, 50, 40, 25. 
16, 14, 27, I, 4, 6, 2, I, 4, I, 4. 

I E. A B C D E 
23 41 24 10 3 

Thus in school C, we have 54 tea.chers divided into 8 



88 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

groups, but 20, or more than one-third, are ranked in the 
highest class. 

In school D, 80 teachers are ranked in 1 1 groups. One- 
fifth of these are given a top-most grade of 100, usually re- 
garded as a perfect mark. 57, or more than seven-tenths 
of the number, are in the three upper grades. 

In school E, 1 01 teachers are divided into five classes. 
Almost one- fourth are in the first-class; not far from one- 
half are in the second class. In schools C and D the 
median line lies between the second and third highest 
classes; in school E between the first and second. 

In school G, using a scale of four divisions, A, B, C, D, 
95 teachers are distributed in three classes, A having 2, B 
having 92, and C having i. In school H, using the same 
system as school G, of 150 teachers, 11 are placed in rank 
A, one in rank C, and the remainder in rank B. In school 
I the median mark for practice teaching lies between 97.5 
and 98 per cent., the range of distribution lying between 
99.5 and 78. In this school most of the marks in the vari- 
ous subjects lie above 90, on the old basis of 100 per cent. 

Such use of a commonly accepted system of grading 
tends to destroy the value of that system. This probably 
means a false estimate of the mental trait in question. Little 
children are encouraged by a grade of 100 per cent, on a 
piece of work, and it may be policy to give the grade. But 
to class one-fifth of a group of teachers in the top rank, 
marked 100, is doubtless beyond the facts which school men 
would wish to express. And to class one-half the group in 
the first one, two, or even three grades when eight or more 
grades are used is probably not what is wished, if the one 
who is measuring these mental traits stops to consider 
what he is doing. 

The distribution is often absurdly eccentric. 

Thorndike, in the third chapter of his Educational Psy- 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 89 

chology, points out that the distribution of mental traits 
follows a regular law, except when these traits are influenced 
by some natural selection. This law is that of the normal 
frequency curve. Paying- no attention to the mathematical 
accuracy involved, this normal distribution says roughly 
that at the upper and lower limits of the trait in question 
there are very few cases : that the number of cases increase, 
on each side equally, as one approaches the center or median 
of that trait : that at this point the larger number of cases 
are to be found. Entirely aside from any technical lan- 
guage this merely means that in the ability to solve alge- 
braic problems among a thousand first-year high school 
students there will be a large number of mediocre ability: 
then on each side, for better and for worse, there will be 
a distribution about equal : that at the two extremes there 
will be but very few, say two or three of first-class ability, 
and at the other end of the scale, as many of scarcely any 
algebraic ability. Such is the normal frequency we have 
reason to expect when we know of no disturbing agency. 

Even a glance at the tables of distribution used in this 
study shows that they deviate much from the law just 
mentioned. A few tables will be illustrative. 

The first deviation from the law is what I may term 
bunching: and first, bunching at the extremes. The fol- 
lowing distributions are illustrative: 

6B : I, 4, 2, 3, 2, 3, I, 4, 3, 7, 6, 7, 5, 6, 9, 9, 6, 17. 

5C: 17,3,6, 1,7, 5,2,2. 

4C: 3, I, I, 5, I, 9, 2, I, I, 5, I, I, 5, I, I, 16. 
13D: 18, 14,30. 1,5, 5' 2, 1,5, I, 5- 

7E: 25,6, 10,30,8, I, II, 3. 
Here are three cases where the bunching is at the upper 
extreme, and two cases where the large group is at the 
lower extreme. Both cases are improbable, unnatural, and 
quite likely not really desired by the one giving the marks. 



^O NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

Another case of bunching is at intervals in the distribu- 
tions. For example: 

5A: I, 4, I, 5, 2, 20, 2, 7, 10, 4, 23, 4, 8, 14, 3, 21, 6, 

3, 2, 8, 2. 
7B: I, 1,2, I, 1,3, 1,7, I, I, 1,9, I, 1,6. 
4C: 3, I, I, 5, I, 9, 2, I, I, 5, I, I, 5, I, I, 16. 
8-iD: 16, 9, 31, 12, 18. 
7E: 25,6, 10,30,8, I, 11,3. 

Here the bunching is probably due to the tendency to use 
more frequently certain marks than others. 80, 85, and 
90 are more readily used than 83, 87, 91. In 5A, the greater 
frequencies are seen to be at intervals of five. Likewise, 
A, B, C, are more readily given then A — , B-[-, C+. 

Both these cases of bunching are in all probability due to 
carelessness or indifference in grading, rather than the pres- 
ence of some selective agency. The presence of a selective 
agency would disturb the normal frequency, and one might 
then expect a regular grouping, due to the disturbing cause. 
This, then, means that the marks given are not precise meas- 
urements of the trait in question : but are rather mere ex- 
cuses for the desired grading. 

A second case of the distribution not being normal is 
that which is so conspicuous in schools G and H. Here 
the distribution lies between A and C, though with the 
use of the scale A, B, C, D, but with almost all the cases 
in B. This necessitated an arbitrary further distribution 
into ten grades, as seen in all the tables for schools H and 
G. Even with the attempted improvement, the number 
of cases under B is too large to allow any suggestion of a 
normal distribution. The very fact that the marks found 
were almost wholly of grade B is plain evidence that little 
or no discrimination was used in giving these grades. It 
was only with much patient search that even a score of C 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 



Qi 



grade teachers could be found among many hundred, and 
only two or three of D grade. 

This evident lack of discrimination calls in question the 
use of marks at all. Marks are intended to be measures 
of mental traits. Measurement implies the presence of dif- 
ferences. Now classing individuals in large groups in the 
methods just pointed out means a lack of discrimination, — 
or it may be a fear to express one's own convictions. In 
either case, or in any case, such use of marks is destructive 
to the whole system. They lose their significance. Men 
must soon cease to have any confidence in them as meas- 
ures : for they do not measure. 

The study of these marks leads to certain suggestions or 
recommendations as to the nature of grading individuals, • 
of measuring their mental traits. 

(i) Grading should be by relative position. It is im- 
possible to use the present system as an absolute measure. 
One can not say that the individual stands lOO per cent, in 
history, 90 per cent, or 83>^ per cent. An individual men- 
tal trait is too intangible and too variable to be submitted 
to that kind of measurement. Strength can be measured 
by the pound-weight : swiftness of foot, by the distance per 
minute, but scholarship in mathematics or history is really 
to be measured by its relative position in a group with which 
it can be compared. We might, for example, referring to 
the series of marks below, say of these 147 teachers : " Six 
of them stand in the fore-front, without making a discrim- 
ination among these six. There are ten others so near 
alike that we may give them second rank compared with 

Grade 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 50 40 

Frequency 6 10 31 24 31 28 8 S 3 i 

the best six. In the succeeding lower ranks are the groups 
31, 24, 31, 28, 8, 5, 3, I. In this case the six set the stand- 



92 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

ard of measurement, by which others stand or fall." Or we 
might begin at the lower extreme and take the single man 
in this case as the standard, and measure all the others 
upward. But the best man or the poorest man does not 
serve well as the standard for comparison. This should 
rather be the central tendency of the group. This should 
serve as the standard, and the better and worse be measured 
by their deviations from the central tendency. Thus we 
measure individuals in a group by their deviations from 
the central tendency in respect to a particular trait. This is 
far preferable to an imagined absolute measure. The per 
cent method of grading and the letter method, if properly 
used, are really measures by relative position. John should 
be marked 80, not because that number expresses his de- 
gree of mentality, but because he is slightly above the larger 
portion of the class, the average of which is rather arbitrarily 
placed at, say 75. In this way we are measuring the in- 
dividuals of a group in terms of a function of that group. 

(2) The range of distribution should be comparatively 
wide. In schools G and H, the. distribution is in three 
groups, though on a scale of four. Yet in these two schools, 
there is practically no distribution : that is, almost all cases 
are put into one group, B. Here is an extreme case of 
almost non-discrimination. One step removed from this 
extreme is that of two groups. These two may stand for 
the satisfactory and the unsatisfactory groups. And this 
is a very practical division. A principal or superintendent 
may, for his immediately practical purposes, -divide his 
teachers into the satisfactory and the unsatisfactory classes'. 
The one, he retains; the other, he dismisses. The eighth 
grade teacher, at the close of the year, may divide her 
fifty pupils into two groups; forty are satisfactory and are 
passed into the high school : the ten are unsatisfactory and 
are retained. This is the mere act of accepting and re- 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 93 

jecting. There are times when a carpenter may direct 
that a pile of lumber may be divided into two classes : that 
which is two or more inches in thickness, and that which 
is less. The former he can use; the latter is not wanted. 
But his various labors soon ask for finer measures and 
there are many practical purposes to be accomplished 
through a closer discrimination. A merchant asks the prin- 
cipal of a school for his two most capable boys in figuring. 
The one most capable in the class is valedictorian ; the next 
most capable presents the salutation in the closing exercises 
of the school: there are prizes and honors (and dishonors) 
to be distributed according to the standing of the individuals 
in class. These are practical purposes to be met by a closer 
discrimination between the mental traits of the pupils of 
the school. 

There is also a new demand for this finer measurement 
of mentality. Students of education in their study of prob- 
lems pertaining to school work are in need of these facts. 
The problem of educational values, e, g., does the study of 
Latin enable the pupil to accomplish more in algebra, can 
not be answered by knowing whether or not the student 
" passed." A closer discrimination of his algebraic ability 
is necessary. All inquir)^ as to the relation between mental 
traits calls for the finer measures of mentality. The old 
100 per cent basis implies a possible grouping into 100 
divisions. Yet probably such a range is never used. In the 
data here used, the range is from 100 to 15, yet there are few 
cases where twenty divisions are used. The number of di- 
visions must depend much upon the number of individuals 
graded, and much upon the motive in the grading. Where 
greater discrimination is wanted, the number of divisions 
must be greater. Where acceptable or non-acceptable is 
all that is wanted, two classes are sufficient. Further, where 
the number of individuals is small, the number of groups 



94 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

will be small. In school D, scholarship in the various sub- 
jects is marked by the three measures i, 2, 3. In the tables 
for this school, these three grades are expanded into five by 
the method of averages used, and even this means little 
discrimination where a hundred or more individuals are 
involved. 

The range of distribution should be sufficiently wide 
that one may be able to locate at least the extreme 10 per 
cent : that is, it would be well to be able to speak definitely 
of the best 10 per cent and of the poorest. In the use of 
only three divisions, this would necessitate 80 per cent in 
the middle class. Here is too little discrimination. It 
would be well to be able to speak of half the class grouped 
about the median grade. Retaining our 10 per cent ex- 
tremes, this would call for at least five groups, viz. : 10, 15, 
50, 15 and 10 per cents. But to throw half of the whole 
number into one group is to measure very roughly that 
group, and it is also desirable that the extremes be less than 
10 per cent : for one would wish to know the one, two, or 
three most capable boys in a school of 50 pupils. It would 
seem then that at least seven or nine divisions should be 
used, in case of even as few as twenty individuals. More 
than fifteen or eighteen grades become cumbersome and call 
for closer discrimination than is probably needed. 

The 100 per cent method of marking, so commonly used, 
is usually assumed to be an absolute measure — a certain 
per cent of perfection being the measure. Difficulties here 
are evident. Foremost of all is the fact that no work 
ever really merits a perfect mark. 

(3) The normal curve of distribution should serve as the 
standard. This nonnal course, as pointed out earlier, means 
simply — that, under normal conditions, of the members of a 
large group a considerable portion will be nearly equal 
in a given trait, and will represent the central tendency of 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 



95 



the group. Above and below, for better and for worse, 
other members are about equally distributed: at the two 
extremes are to be found only comparatively few, repre- 
senting the very best and the very poorest. Psychology D, 
table VII, is not at all normal: and is probably not a just 
rating. It is probably not true that the great majority are 
at the very top. 

In actual application, the teacher would need first to 
decide upon the number of groups to make, according to 
the suggestion made above. Then pick out those of 
mediocre ability for the median class. The others are to 
be distributed above and below. In using this method, one 
must be careful not to follow it too rigidly. A perfectly 
normal distribution is probably not possible. 3, 5, 12, 20, 
38, 20, 12, 5, 3 is expected to be somewhat altered. Yet 
this is a type to which all groups doubtless do tend. 

This method seeks the natural course, in two particulars : 
(i) Mental ability is really judged by no absolute standard, 
but by relation to the same kind of ability in other individ- 
uals. (2) Most of such abilities are neither very good nor 
very bad, but have what is known as the normal curve of 
distribution. 

That the suggestions made above concern a real issue is 
abundantly proven by the following table (Table VII) 
which gives some 60 samples taken at random of the grades 
used in the present study. The scales for these grades are 
given at the left of the table. 



96 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



TABLE VII 

SAMPLES OF GRADES GIVEN IN NORMAL SCHOOLS 





< 


pq 


u 




M 


pq 




fe 




fe 
^ 




<i 


m 








'o 
o 


1 

o 




ho 

c 




u 

.s 

IS 


! 






1^ 





a 


,0 

J3 


ffi 


< 
3 




>, 


>, 


>^ 


rt 






ai 


in 


rt 


nt 


a 












P-I 


p^ 


p^ 


H 


ffi 


S 


H 


ffi 


CM 


^ 


£ 


§ 


§ 


'0 

CO 


K 


100 
































99 










5 






















98 






I 




6 














I 






2 


97 






























2 


96 






























2 


95 




I 


4 




14 


2 


5 


6 








4 


3 




10 


94 






I 






2 








I 




I 






I 


93 




2 






I 


3 


I 


I 










2 






92 




5 






5 


6 


I 




I 






5 


I 




8 


91 




I 








3 






3 


2 




2 






I 


90 




4 


13 


13 


38 


7 


9 


6 


2 


3 




20 


5 




24 


89 


I 


2 




2 




6 






4 


2 




2 


I 




I 


88 




14 




15 


6 


^^ 


2 




6 


3 




7 


5 




5 


87 




5 




10 




6 


3 


I 


5 






10 








86 




2 




8 


3 


9 








2 




4 


I 




4 


85 


4 


II 


4 


s 


13 


10 


4 


4 


i8 


7 




23 


7 


I 


16 


84 




13 




3 


2 


5 




2 


7 






4 


3 


6 


3 


83 


II 


5 




5 


I 


6 


3 




9 


3 




8 


I 


6 


I 


82 


2 


7 




6 


5 


6 


5 




II 


4 




14 


5 


7 


9 


81 




2 








4 






5 


2 


I 


3 




7 




80 


12 


6 


3 


7 


17 


7 


4 


4 


25 


5 


10 


21 


12 


70 


19 


79 


5 




I 


3 




I 






4 




21 




7 


15 


3 


78 


13 


4 




5 


7 


I 


2 


I 


19 


3 


29 


6 


12 


20 


9 


77 


i6 






2 


2 




I 


I 


6 


3 


25 


3 


4 


24 




76 


9 


6 






6 




3 




4 


I 


30 


2 


5 


25 


7 


75 


S3 


4 


27 




7 




9 


2 


15 


I 


36 


8 


18 


20 


3 


74 




















I 


2 






5 




73 


7 








2 












I 






7 




72 


I 








I 










I 








I 




71 




















I 












70 


5 








I 








2 






2 




I 




69 
































68 










I 






















67 
































66 
































65 


I 






























64 
































63 
































62 
































61 
































60 










I 






















15 


I 






























N 


147 


97 


54 


97 


144 


103 


52 


28 


151 


45 


155 


150 


92 


155 


131 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 
' TABLE Vll— Continued 



97 



































W 






bo 


W 


rn 






W 


w 


« 


W 


u 

bo 


•— > 


9 




bo 


o 




.S 
H 


IS 

1 


C/1 


1 




a 


rt 
g 


'o 
CO 


>> 

1 


o 


c 
IS 

H 


H 


PL. 


P4 


IS 




A 


20 


23 


i8 


12 


39 


19 


i6 


i8 


25 


19 


14 


7 


10 


9 


8 


19 


A— 






30 


16 






27 


30 





21 












21 


B+ 


5 




24 


23 




5 


II 


^^ 


10 


^•l 


4 










23 


B 


7 


41 


i8 


31 


35 


6 


13 


i8 


30 


i8 


7 


32 


i8 


24 


41 


19 


B- 






7 


7 




I 


12 


7 


8 


Q 















c+ 


9 




2 


8 




9 


12 


2 


I 


4 


6 










I 


c 


7 


24 




4 


22 


7 


8 




II 


s 


3 


II 


20 


19 


13 


12 


c— 


3 




3 






3 


I 


3 


3 




I 










I 


D+ 


































D 


2 


10 






I 


2 










I 


I 


4 


S 


2 




D— 


































E+ 


































E 




3 




















2 


I 




3 




N 


54 


lOI 


102 


lOI 


97 


52 


100 


102 


94 


lOI 


Z7 


53 


53 


57 


67 


102 





•-% 


















^ 


■ *"* 


d 


•-4 












Pi4 


'C 




o 












m 


Oh 


g 


ts 


^ 


•— » 


»— » 


CO 




(^ 


«« 


'ot 


i 




£? 


-s 


1? 






K 


1 


Id 


w 


S 


bo 


1 


A 


7 


I 


I 




2 


3 


4 


7 


A-B 


9 


3 


8 


2 


3 


I 




4 


B 


, 13 


31 


28 


2 


II 


8 


12 


29 


B-C 


10 


9 


lO 


I 


3 


3 


9 


25 


C 


i6 


10 


15 


9 


21 


24 


21 


39 


C-D 


6 


2 


2 




4 


3 


7 


i6 


D 


3 


5 


2 


3 


4 


4 


6 


13 


P-E 




I 


I 


3 




3 


■ 




E 








4 


1 






7 


N 


64 


62 


67 


24 


49 


50 


* 


140 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 
TABLE Mil— Continued 



















ffi 


P 


W 






P 








. 












< 


^ 


P 


W 


fx, 


P 


M 


_o 


■ Si 




•+3 




bO 


o 


bo 


bfl 


bo 


tn 




s 


rt 






1 




fe" 


.S 


C 
'a 


•§ 

^ 


^ 


i H 


1 




H 


OT 
P^ 




ffi 


H" 


& 








vi 

S 


100 




i6 


II 


2 




15 


II 




IQ 


21 


95 


6 


14 


10 


17 


3 


14 


22' 


5 


14 


13 


9U 


10 


27 


24 


32 


3 


32 


19 


12 


31 


30 


85 


31 


I 




10 


6 


I 


13 


i6 


I 


3 


80 


24 


4 


4 


i8 


4 


4 


12 


i6 


4 


14 


75 


^l 


6 


5 


7 


8 


6 


2 


22 


6 


4 


70 


28 


2 




9 


7 


2 


5 


10 


2 


7 


65 


8 






2 . 


2 




2 


27 




4 


60 


5 


I 




5 


3 


I 


I 


10 


I 


2 


55 








I 








II 






50 


3 


4 


5 


2 


6 


5 




12 


5 


I 


45 








I 












I 


40 


I 


I 








I 








2 


35 






















30 




















I 


25 




4 


4 






5 






6 


2 


15 




















I 


N 


147 


8o 


64 


io6 


42 


86 


87 


150 


89 


106 









P 




P 










P 




P 

bo 


p 




bo 




P 


Q 


P 


P 







c 




H 


C 


S 


<u 


>> 


^ 


-a 






J 




i 








0) 




1 
ffi 


1 



1 


pm 


7 


21 


17 


21 


14 


21 


14 


10 


16 


9 


19 


^ 


S 


4 


5 


21 


.4 


23 


8 


9 


19 


13 


J 


29 


28 


29 


44 


27 


23 


31 


31 


12 


^ 


IS 


5 


15 


16 


II 


14 




12 


21 


8 


5 


13 


II 


13 


II 


14 


5 


18 


18 


4 


7 


N 


83 


6S 


83 


106 


88 


83 


64 


86 


84 


59 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 



99 



I regret that it is impossible for me to print here in full 
the original data from each of the 1185 teachers' records, 
and their correlation tables showing the detailed facts for 
each of the 140 coefficients calculated. To do so would re- 
quire some hundred pages of tables. I append a few 
sample tables which give the details in the case of some of 
the important relationships. 

In the nine tables that follow the scale of grading for 
teaching is given at the left of each table; that for the sub- 
ject correlated with teaching, at the top. The figures in 
the body of the table show the distribution of all the 
individuals studied and, by their position, indicate the 
standing for each individual in the two subjects com- 
pared. At the right and bottom are the sums of the 
several arrays. It should be said that in the first two 
tables (schools H and G) the scale at the left was originally 
A, B, C, D, though only A, B, C, was actually used, i cor- 
responds to A; 2-y to B; 8-10 to C. Thus in the first table 
II teachers are graded A; 136, B; and 7, C. The B and C 
grades were scattered by taking into account the + and — 
marks upon some of the grades. 



lOO 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



« wvo o 





« Tj- •«»■ t^ 0» »- 




J;h m.- 


w N fO 


00 


Si 


„ w w N w 


VO 


^J5 " 

Is: 










o 



t>. 



I. 



•8 "* 



« w »C 



« w « 



H w I *" S " I S: 

2 G^r^MNHHf.5 o*<J .f^ 

:^ "^ f OV M M « 



•>! <V) «*, > «<^ NO t^ «0 Ov g 



•NM'»»VW^^*^*0Ov^ 



TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP iqi 







TABLE VIII (3) 




TABLE VIII 


(4) 




SCHOOLS A, B, C AND E 


SCHOOLS A 


. B, 


C, D AND E 




Teaching and Psychology 


Teaching and *^ Professional" 




1 


2 


5 4 


5 




1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


/ 


ID 


II 


7 




28 


1 17 


14 


4 


4 


I 40 


2 


i6 


21 


4 3 




44 


2 20 


20 


14 


4 


58 


3 


12 


30 


13 7 


I 


63 


3 24 


47 


27 


14 


6 118 


4 


21 


42 


77 17 


5 


162 


4 12 


40 


38 


14 


8 112 


5 


2 


5 


i8 II 


4 


40 


5 10 


20 


30 


11 


5 76 


6 




4 


7 2 


5 


18 


6 5 


7 


II 


7 


7 37 


7 


ID 


II 


8 II 


4 


44 


7 3 


4 


9 


8 


I 25 



71 124 134 51 19 399 



91 152 133 62 28 466 



TABLE VIII (5) 



SCHOOL A 



Teaching and Methods in English 
95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 50 



40 



94 




I 
















93 




















92 




I 
















90 
00 


2 


3 




3 


7 




I 






oV 

88 








3 


I 








I 


87 








1 


2 










86 




















85 


I 


4 


10 


6 


1 


8 




1 


I 


84 








2 


■ I 








I 


83 








2 


2 


2 


I 


I 




82 


I 






I 




2 








80 


2 


2 




4 


7 


6 


2 


2 




79 












I 








78 






I 


I 


I 


I 


2 






77 












I 


I 






76 












I 








75 






3 




7 


3 


2 


I 




73 








I 












70 






2 






I 








68 












I 








67 












I 








55 


















I 




6 


II 


36 


24 


30 


28 


9 


5 


4 



154 



I02 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 






W ^3 









TEACHING EFFICIENCY AND SCHOLARSHIP 103 
TABLE VIII (7) 











SCHOOL 


c 














Teaching 


and Methods in 


English 








A 


B+ 


B 


B- 


c+ 


c 


C- 


D 




95 


I 




I 




2 


I 






5 


90 


7 


I 






I 






I 


10 


89 










I 








I 


85 


2 








I 


I 


I 




5 


80 


2 




I 




2 


I 






6 


79 












I 






I 


75 


8 


4 


5 


I 


2 


3 


2 


I 


26 




20 


5 


7 


I 


9 


7 


3 


2 


54 



TABLE VIII (8) TABLE VIII (9) 







SCHOOL 


, D 










SCHOOL E 






Teaching and Methods in 


English 


Teaching and Methods in 


English 




I 


1-2 


^ 


2-3 


3 






A 


B 


c 


D 


E 


100 


I 


I 


II 


I 




14 


A 


10 


6 


4 


I 


21 


95 


4 


2 


4 


2 


2 


14 


AB 


5 


9 


5 




19 


90 


3 


6 


9 


4 


7 


29 


B 


3 


20 


7 


3 


33 


85 






I 


I 




2 


BC 


I 


5 


6 


3 


2 17 


80 


I 






I 


I 


3 


C 




I 


2 


3 


I 7 


75 


2 


I 


I 




2 


6 




19 


41 


24 


10 


3 97 


70 


2 










2 














60 




I 








I 














50 




2 




I 


2 


5 














40 










I 


I 














25 


I 






2 


2 


5 















14 13 26 12 17 82 

Note. — ^Criticism has been made upon this study to this effect: To 
establish a correlation between scholarship in psychology and ability 
to teach, for example, does not show that the study of psychology con- 
tributes to efficiency in teaching, but only that that study serves as an 
effective means of selecting those who have qualities required in 
successful teaching. An answer to this may be found in the quotation 
from Pearson given on page 61. But in either case the practical con- 
sequences are the same. 



CHAPTER V 

GENERAL TRAINING OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS 

Introduction 

1. The Problem. 

There is in New York and Massachusetts an increasing 
attention paid to the training of elementary teachers. New 
Normal Schools have been erected within the last few years 
and the efficiency in equipment has been much extended. 
Attendance upon these schools has increased to meet the de- 
mand. The larger cities have their own Normal Schools. 
Training classes in various local high schools are much en- 
couraged. While the graduates of these training schools 
are in much demand/ there is a demand in some localities 
for teachers who are " self-made," i. e., teachers who, in 
profiting by experience, have gained success. There are also 
a few college graduates teaching in the grades. We may 
well ask from what kind of training do the most efficient 
teachers come. The individual and personal element must, 
of course, enter largely, but in the present inquiry we shall 
set that aside. 

2. Generalizations. 

This is too limited a study to insure completely valid re- 
sults. The generalizations indicated are as follows : 

1. There is a slight tendency to promote the more effi- 
cient teachers into the upper grades. 

2. Amount of experience seems to have little influence on 
the degree of teaching efficiency. 

3. There is no indication that the amount of secondary 
school training- has any relation to teaching efficiency. 

4. Only 35^ per cent of the teachers studied are college 

1 Yonkers, N. Y., has few teachers who are not Normal School grad- 
uates. 

104 



TRAINING OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS 105 

graduates. These, as well as those who attended college 
but did not graduate, have a rank below the average in the 
schools in which they are teaching. 

5. Normal School graduates do not stand emphatically 
above the average teacher. It is clear, however, that grad- 
uates of city training schools, and those who have not 
studied in pedagogical schools are somewhat inferior to the 
average teacher. 

Method 
I. Data Collected. 

For this inquiry answers were secured to the following 
questions : 

1 . In what grade are you teaching ? 

2. How many years have you taught ? 

3. How many years did you study in the high school ? 

4. How many years did you spend in college? 

Did you graduate? 

Give the name of the college. 

5. Professional work. 

Wliat school did you attend? 

How many years? 

Did you finish the course? 

These questions were sent to elementary schools in New 
York and Massachusetts, containing from 8 to 31 teachers. 
These teachers answered the questions, after which the prin- 
cipal of the school expressed his estimate of the general 
teaching efficiency of each teacher by grouping them accord- 
ing to their relative rank. For example, one principal 
grouped his 27 teachers as follows : 

First rank. Second rank. Third rank. Fourth rank. 
Number of Teachers ... 5 8 10 4 

The data here used come from 33 schools and represent 
507 teachers. With but few exceptions, each teacher an- 



io6 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



swered all the questions, so that the data are complete, so- 
far as they go. 

2. Regrouping. 

The ranking of the teachers of the 33 schools differed 
much in the number of groups into which the corps of 
teachers was divided. For example, one principal divided 
his teachers into a first, second and third rank. Others 
made 5, 8, 12, and even 22 groups. In this last group were 
22 teachers, who were thus arranged in perfect serial order 
from the most efficient teacher to the least efficient teacher. 
To use all these together they must be reduced to the same 
number of groups. The following table (IX) shows how 
they were reduced to five groups. Here the principle used 
was that the extremes should be disturbed as little as pos- 
sible. Thus, in an original grouping into 10 we now have: 
first rank remains first rank; second and third become sec- 
ond rank; the fourth to the seventh become third rank; 
eighth and ninth become fourth rank; and the tenth be- 
comes fifth rank. 

TABLE IX 

TABLE OF REGROUPING. 



Original 


First 


Second 


Third 


Fourth 


Fifth 


Groups 


Rank 


Rank 


Rank 


Rank 


Rank 


5 




2 


3 


4 


5 


6 




2 


3-4 


5 


6 


7 




2 


3-5 


6 


7 


8 




2 


3-6 


7 


8 


9 




2-Z 


4-6 


7-8 


9 


10 




2-3 


4-7 


8-9 


10 


II 




2-3 


4-8 


9-10 


II 


12 




2-4 


5-8 


9-11 


12 


13 




2-4 


5-9 


10-12 


13 


14 




2-4 


5-10 


11-13 


14 


IS 




2-5 


6-10 


11-14 


IS 


18 




2-6 


7-12 


13-17 


18 


19 




2-6 


/-13 


14-18 


19 


20 




2-6 


7-14 


15-19 


20 


22 


1-2 


3-7 


8-15 


16-20 


21-22 



TRAINING OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS 107 

Discussion. 
I. First question. 

Any inquiry as to in what grade the better teachers are 
found has really no direct bearing on the question of effi- 
ciency in teaching. Consideration is given to it here only 
for the purpose of locating the cases studied in the ques- 
tions following. 

The desire for promotion is natural in teaching as in 
other occupations. Just what promotion in the elementary 
schools means is perhaps somewhat questionable. There is 
a feeling among such teachers that an advance to a higher 
grade in the school is given in recognition of greater effi- 
ciency, is promotion. In some schools teachers in the higher 
grades are recognized as the stronger teachers and are paid 
accordingly. 

For the present purpose I have rearranged the groupings 
of the various schools into three groups by the method sug- 
gested above. The following is the table of distribution, 
the first grade including a few designated as kindergarten 
teachers : 









TABLE 


X 










Grades 1 


2 


S 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 




I 44 


23 


17 


12 


17 


15 


15 


22 


8 


173 


2 45 


16 


23 


27 


20 


18 


19 


12 


3 


183 


3 32 


II 


19 


IS 


II 


13 


5 


6 




112 


121 


50 


59 


54 


48 


46 


39 


40 


II 


468 



"As a rule, the best-trained teachers, those receiving the 
highest salaries, should be placed in the lower primary and 
the upper grammar grades, while the young and inexperi- 
enced should be placed in the intermediate." ^ This seems 
like a very plausible theory and there is a little evidence of 

1 J. H. Phillips, Superintendent, Birmingham, Ala. Quoted in the 
Report of the Chicago School Comthission for 1900, p. 52. 



I08 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

its practice here. Table X shows the lower and upper 
grades to have a little better representation in the first rank, 
while the third to seventh grades have more of the second 
rank teachers. 

2. Second question. 

What do our data indicate as to the relation of experience 
to relative standing in teaching efficiency? We have such 
questions as these: Does the teacher's standing increase 
with her experience, i. e., do the older teachers stand fore- 
most, or is there a certain amount of experience at which a 
teacher is in her " prime of life?" 

In this study I have divided the thirty-three schools into 
two divisions : In the first division I have rearranged into 
five groups all schools already in five or more groups; in 
the other I have arranged into three groups those schools 
already in three or four groups. In the former group are 
387 cases; in the latter, 117 cases — making 504 cases con- 
sidered. The number of years' experience in teaching is 
given in nine groups, as follows: o, i, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 to 10, 
II to 15, 16 and over. The following table gives the distri- 
bution. The numbers at the top give the number of years' 
experience; those at the left indicate the rank of the teach- 
ers; the others show the individual cases in each. 

TABLE XI(i) 

TEACHING EFFICIENCY IN RELATION TO EXPERIENCE 

Amount of Experience 
Rank i<J+ 15—11 10—6 5 4 3 2 10 Total 



1 


9 


16 


18 


2 


2 


I 


2 




50 


2 


16 


16 


28 


10 


6 


4 


7 


4 


91 


3 


16 


14 


SI 


10 


12 


13' 


ID 


12 I 


139 


4 


14 


15 


18 


6 


3 


6 


5 


ID 


77 


5 


5 


7 


10 




I 


2 


I 


4 . 


30 



Total 60 68 125 28 24 26 35 30 I 387 



TRAINING OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS 109 

When turned into percentages the entries in the above 
table give the following : 

TABLE XI(2) 
Amount of Experience 



Rank 


16+ 


15-11 


10-6 


5 


4 


3 


2 


1 


Total 


1 


15 


23.6 


14.4 


7 


8.3 


3.8 


8 




13 


2 


26.7 


23.6 


22.4 


35.8 


25 


15.4 


28 


13.3 


23.5 


3 


26.7 


20.6 


40.8 


35.8 


SO 


50 


40 


40 


100 z^ 


4 


23-3 


22 


14.4 


21.4 


12.5 


23.1 


20 


33-3 


20 


5 


8.3 


10.2 


8 




4.2 


7-7 


4 


13.3 


7-5 



That is, 1 5 per cent of those who taught sixteen years or 
more are in the first rank; 13.3 per cent of those with one 
year's experience are in the lowest rank. 

The true standing in each group may be well seen from 
the median of each group; that is, the point which marks 
the dividing line between the better half and the poorer half 
in each group of teachers. These medians are calculated 
upon the series of five groups according to teaching effi- 
ciency. I omit the single case with o years' experience. 



16+ 


11—15 


6-^10 


5 


4 3 


2 1 


Total 


2.81 


2.63 


2.82 


2.70 


2.83 311 


2.85 3.40 


2.88 



A treatment of the other 117 cases in three groups gives 
practically the same results. The following is the table of 
distribution : 







TABLE XII 
















Amount of Experience 










Rank 16+ 


11—15 


6-19 


5 


4 


3 


2 


1 





Totals 


1 8 


9 


II 


4 


3 


2 


I 






38 


2 6 


10 


19 


2 


2 


4 


2 


4 


5 


54 


3 3 


3 


9 




I 


I 


I 


6 


I 


25 


Totals 17 


22 


39 


6 


6 


7 


4 


10 


6 


117 



no NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

The medians on the basis of a series of three are as fol- 
lows : 

Experience 26+ 12—15 6—10 5 4 3 2 10 Totals 
Median Rank 1.58 1.70 i.qs 1.25 1.50 1.87 2 2.66 2.10 1.88 

Fig. I. 
From Table XL 

i<;>+ ii-is G-io s H ^ 1 I 
1 



3 



4 



From Table XI L 



8 



TRAINING OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS m 

Figure i presents graphically the comparison of amount 
of experience with efficiency in teaching. The numbers at 
the left are the rank in teaching efficiency. 

The Pearson formula for the index of correlation for the 
387 cases with the better grading gives .097. This would 
be much smaller but for the group with one year of experi- 
ence. Apart from that group there is practically a zero 
correlation. It must be said, then, in answer to the relation 
between experience and teaching efficiency that beyond the 
■first year of experience it is practically nil. After the first 
year the amount of experience is not an important criterion 
for efficient teaching in the elementary schools. The im- 
portance of this fact, if it is confirmed by later researches, 
to administrators of school systems is obvious. 

3. Third question. 

Here the question is : Is there evidence of any difference 
in the teaching efficiency of those who took more or less 
than the usual four years in high school work. That is, 
does a post-graduate year in the high school tend to 
strengthen the teachers, and will less than four years in the 
high school give a lower teaching efficiency? There were 
429 answers to this question. Of these 12 were ambiguous 
in that 7, 9, 10, 12, etc., were the answers. These twelve 
persons evidently misunderstood the question or used " sec- 
ondary schools " in a sense not intended. One answered, 
"Don't know." Discarding these 13 replies we have 416 
to be considered. 

Only 19 report having taken an extra year in the high 
school; 169 spent less than four years in the high school. 
Any significance in more or less than four years of high 
school work must be found, if at all, in the distribution of 
these 19 and 169 in the schools in which they are ranked. 
This, for the evident reason that the other 288 took the full 



112 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

course, and the question here is consequently as to the more 
and less. If the former are found among the better of each 
group, there is evidence that the extra year contributes 
directly to teaching efficiency; if the latter are found among 
the lower of each group, there is the same evidence. For 
the line of demarcation between the better and the worse, 
I have taken the median of all the cases in each school. 
The significance of having spent more or less than four years 
in high school work depends, in the second place, upon the 
amount of deviation from this median. That is, if the 19 
who spent more than the usual four years were found in the 
first rank when the median is, for example, 4.5, the contri- 
bution of this extra year is greater than if these 19 were in 
the third rank. The results are as follows : Of the 19 who 
did extra work in the secondary schools, 9 stand above the 
median, 10 below. The sums of the deviations from the 
medians are 12.60 above and 24.46 below. Of the 169 who 
spent less than four years, 85 are found above the median, 
84 are below. The sums of the deviations are 197.33 and 
225.93 respectively. 

Thus, so far as these results go, there is no proof that the 
amount of time spent in secondary school work has a bene- 
ficial influence on teaching efficiency, and the evidence is 
that it has little or none. It may be said that with but few 
exceptions these 19 and 169 have done other work than the 
high school in preparing for teaching. There is evidence 
that many of the 169 took their secondary studies in the 
Normal Schools with their professional work. 

4. Fourth question. 

In many parts of the country a college training is re- 
quired for high school teachers. The tendency in all school 
systems is in this direction. In contrast to this, there 
are only a few college graduates in the elementary schools. 



TRAINING OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS 113 

The opinion has been expressed that the time is soon com- 
ing when these teachers also must be college graduates. On 
the other hand, it is strongly asserted that this more ad- 
vanced study tends to suppress that sympathy with child 
nature so much needed in the elementary schools. The data 
at hand are rather meager, but they tend to support the 
latter position. 

Of the 517 teachers replying, only 19 are college grad- 
uates. There are 14 others who have been in college from 
one to three years. Of the former group, the following are 
the colleges and the amounts of deviation of each teacher 
from the median rank in each group ( + indicates above the 
median; — , below) : 

Boston University — 8.50 

College of the City of New York -f .83 

College of the City of New York + .83 

College of the City of New York — .17 

Manhattan — .17 

Mt. Holyoke — .25 

New York University + .83 

Normal College of the City of New York . — 2. 50 

Pennsylvania College -f- 5. 

Radcliffe 4- 2.50 

Smith -}- .45 

Smith — .80 

Smith — 4.25 

Smith + 3.75 

Syracuse — 1.50 

Tufts + .20 

Wellesley — .25 

Wesleyan — 9.50 

Woman's College of Baltimore — i. 

Total 4- 14.39 — 28.89 

Thus, of the 19 college graduates, 11 rank below the 
median; only 8 above. And the deviations on the lower 
side are considerably greater than on the upper : 28.89 ^^^ 
14.39 respectively. Of the 14 who attended college but did 



114 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCA TION 

not graduate, lo are ranked below the median and only 4 
above, while the sums of the deviations are — 26.30 and 
-;|- 7.39 respectively. 

In this consideration four things are to be noted : 

1. The small proportion of college-bred teachers in the 
elementary schools. Of those studied, only 33^ per cent are 
college graduates and slightly less than 3 per cent have 
studied in college without graduating. 

2. The relative standing of these in teaching efficiency. 
Both classes rank below the average teacher. 

3. The relation between the two groups. The college 
graduate stands higher as an elementary teacher than does 
the one who merely tasted college and did not take a full 
course. 

4. The possibility that only the less gifted college students 
enter elementary teaching. 

5. Fifth question. 

Here the inquiry is as to the contribution to efficiency in 
teaching made by professional study. The method used 
here is to count the number of Normal School graduates 
who stand above and below the median rank in each of the 
33 schools. That is, is the number of teachers who are 
Normal School graduates above the median greater than the 
number below? But we must also take into account the 
amount above or below which each teacher is. We must 
give more credit to a teacher who stands first in a group of 
twelve than to one who stands fourth rank where the 
median is 5.50. 

Tlie whole number of Normal School graduates here con- 
sidered is 290. Of these, 158, or 53 per cent, are above the 
medians of the several groups. Below are 132, or 47 per 
cent. This means that so far as numbers go Normal School 
graduates as teachers are but slightly superior to the aver- 



TRAINING OF ELEMENTAL Y TEA CHERS i j 5 

age. Considering the amounts of deviation in each of the 
290 cases, we find that the total amount of deviation above 
the medians is 303.25, while that below is 341.22. 

In this group there are 90 teachers who are graduates of 
city training schools. Thirty-three, or 37 per cent, are above 
the median; 57, or 63 per cent, are below. Here is consid- 
erable difference on the basis of number. The sums of the 
deviations are: above, 115.45; below, 132.51. Thus, the 
argument of the numbers is supported and we can conclude 
that the city training school graduate is below the Normal 
School graduate. 

There are 69 teachers in this group who have had no 
pedagogical training. Thirty, or 43 per cent, are above the 
median, while 39, or 57 per cent, are below. This argument 
against the teacher with no pedagogical training is further 
supported when the deviations are considered. These are: 
above, 88.80; below, 141.04. 

The conclusion, then, is that the Normal School graduate 
is not much above the median standard, but that both those 
who had their preparation in city training schools and those 
who have had no pedagogical training at all are distinctly, 
though not far, below the standard. The importance of 
such a result is well worth considering by students of edu- 
cation. 



CHAPTER VI 

THE INSTRUCTORS IN THE NEW YORK STATE NORMAL 
SCHOOLS 

Interest in the study of education and attention to the 
training of teachers is on the increase. Normal Schools, 
city training schools, teachers' colleges, and schools of edu- 
cation in universities are much more prominent than a few 
years ago, and there is indication that increased attention 
to this work will continue for some time. Aside from the 
research work in educational problems conducted in educa- 
tional departments of universities, these institutions and the 
Normal and training schools emphasize the need of training 
teachers for their work in elementary, secondary, and even 
higher schools. Educational literature abounds in emphasis 
upon the need of training; teachers. Discussions in educa- 
tional gatherings bear upon these same subjects. On the 
other hand, there seems to be little said or written on the 
subject of this chapter: Are the instructors in the Normal 
Schools adequately prepared for their work ? It is, indeed, 
well to emphasize the training of those who are to teach in 
our public and private schools, or even in our colleges and 
universities ; but what of those who are teaching these pros- 
pective teachers? 

There are at present no established criteria for success- 
ful, efficient teaching. Perhaps none can be discovered. If 
teachers are bom, not made; if teaching is wholly an art, 
not at all a science; if there are really no grounds for a 
scientific inquiry as to what elements are needed as a prep- 
ii6 



NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS ny 

aration for teaching, we have no occasion to point out to 
the prospective teacher certain prescribed principles for in- 
struction. There are at least elements commonly accepted 
as essential. First, scholarship, to some degree beyond 
that of the student under instruction. There is a strong 
tendency — and in some places even a decision — to require 
that teachers in our high schools shall be college graduates. 
This same principle, so characteristic in the German school 
system, is to be emphasized more and more throughout our 
educational system: viz., the teacher must be more in ad- 
vance of the student under his instruction. A second belief is 
that some study of educational problems and some training 
in the art of teaching are essential. In evidence of this, note 
the large number of teachers in New York state who have 
had pedagogical training. The following is a classification 
of the teachers of the state according to the kind of licenses 
held:^ 

Pedagogical Training, Normal School 3979 

Training School 3323 

Examination, State 328 

College 197 

Commissioners 9143 

Temporary 436 

This means that considerably more than one-third of all 
teachers in the state have had pedagogical training. In 
Massachusetts the increase in the number of pedagogically- 
trained teachers has been marked in the past decade.^ 

Finally, there is much reliance upon personality and in- 
dividuality as essential in successful teaching. This is more 
easily recognized than analyzed and developed. 

The first of these principles seems especially applicable to 

'^Report of the State Superintendent, 1902, pp. lo-ii. 
2 Report of the Board of Education, 1902, p. 104. 



I.l8 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

the teaching staff in a school for teachers — emphatically so 
in the Normal Schools. As was said, little attention has 
been paid to the qualifications of these instructors. The 
only reference to this particular matter which I have as yet 
found is by Atkinson.^ He finds the preparation of the 
teacher in secondary schools in this country inadequate, in 
that the Normal School in which he receives his training 
really supplies no more knowledge than he is supposed to 
teach. He notes in this connection the few college grad- 
uates on the faculties of certain of these Normal Schools, 
adding : " The presupposition may be advanced that those 
who are not college graduates or their equal in scholarship 
will not understand how to make the most of what the col- 
lege graduate brings." I think it may be safely asserted, 
further, that a Normal School instructor who has not had 
the experience and uplift of collegiate work, is not suffi- 
ciently ahead of his students, many or all of whom are high 
school graduates, to have a high and permanent influence 
upon them. 

The design of the Normal Schools of New York, as 
stated in most of their catalogues, is " to furnish trained 
teachers for the public schools of the state." " Thus, while 
the Normal Schools may aim primarily to prepare teachers 
for the elementary schools, they do also pretend to prepare 
for secondary work as well. The " Normal College " at 
Albany states its purpose as that of " giving instruction in 
the science and art of teaching," ^ and here there is a dis- 
tinct intention to prepare teachers for the secondary schools. 
Further, all <of these schools recognize college graduates 

1 Professional Preparation of the Secondary Teacher in the United 
States, p. 24. 

2 Circular, New Paltz, 1902-3, page 3. 

3 Circular, 1901, page 3. 



NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS ng 

and invite them to their work. Albany provides special- 
classes for such. Thus there is really in mind work of a 
higher grade. This should call for attention to the qualifi- 
cations of the teachers in such schools. But even if the 
work were wholly for elementary teaching, is it not right 
to presume that these prospective teachers may look for 
highly educated teachers in their instruction? Degrees are 
not an assurance of educated men. Yet, in general, they do 
indicate intellectual standing and educational equipment. 
In this chapter degrees will be used as a partial measurement 
of the equipment of teachers. The treatment of this theme 
aims to show : 

1. The degrees held by the instructors in the Normal- 
Schools of the state of New York, their distribution and 
relations; that there are too few of collegiate standing, 
and rather too many of higher degrees without collegiate 
standing; that the schools do not compare favorably with' 
other pedagogical institutions. 

2. The institutions by which these degrees were granted'; 
that many of the collegiate degrees are from institutions of 
not high standing, while the higher degrees are too much 
limited to the home state, and are too often honorary. 

3. The preparation of those instructors who are without 
degrees ; that too many are without adequate training, hav- 
ing only that offered by the school in which they are now- 
teaching. 

4. Similar details of one school throughout its history; 
that the conditions here are very similar to those of the 
state at large, showing that the latter — on this basis — ^has 
made little change or progress. 

5. That consequently there are too few of the higher, 
trained men and women engaged in the training of our 
elementary teachers ; that the inspiration grv-en by graduate 
study is wanting; that too few of these teachers have 



I20 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

Studied at the centers of greatest advance in educational 
work. 

6. Similar facts concerning 49 representative State Nor- 
mal Schools throughout the country; that these show con- 
ditions similar to those found in the New York schools, 
and thus substantiate the conclusions drawn. 

The rather large number of tables used will speak strongly 
for themselves. They say more than can be written about 
them. They will be their own argument, and will suggest 
a few conclusions. 

The data used for the study of the New York schools 
come through officials at Albany, and are to be relied upon. 
They are not to be found, as yet, in any printed documents. 
Tliese data consist of lists of the faculties of each of the 
twelve Nomial Schools in the state. With the name of 
each instructor are given the several degrees he holds and 
the names of the institutions from which such degrees were 
received. Eight of the twelve schools give also the schools 
at which those who have no degrees have received diplomas, 
or have studied. 

Table XIII shows in detail the degrees held. Roman 
numerals designate individual schools. The Arabic num- 
erals in the first column indicate the whole number of 
instructors in each of the schools. The Arabic numerals in 
the second column stand for the individual instructors who 
hold degrees. The marks in the various columns at the 
right (of these first two) tell the degrees held by each indi- 
vidual. A summary is given for each school, and in table 
XIV is given a summary for all the schools. 

For example: School I has 24 instructors, 13 of whom 
hold degrees of some kind. Instructor number 10 holds 
four degrees, viz.: Pd. B., Pd. M., A. B., Ph. D. The 
total degrees held by this school are: Ph. B., 7; Pd. M., 3; 
A. B., 7; A. M., 8; Pd. D., 6; LL. B., i ; LL. D., 2. 



NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 
TABLE XIII 

DEGREES OF NORMAL SCHOOL INSTRUCTORS 



121 







m 

s 


s 

I 
I 

I 




pq 




CO 


PQ 
< 


t/i 


< 


d 

CO 




P 


PQ 




I 


I 
2 

3 

4 
5 
6 

I 
.1 

II 

12 

13 












I 

I 

I 
I 
I 
I 
I 




I 

I 
I 
I 
I 

I 
I 

I 




I 
I 
I 

I 

I 
I 




I 


I 
I 




24 

II 


13 

I 

2 

3 
4 

9 

10 

II 

12 


7 


3 


I 


I 


I 


I 


7 

I 
I 

; 




8 

I 
I 

I 
I 

I 




6 






2 




22 
III 


12 

2 
3 

4 
9 

10 


I 




I 
I 


I 


I 


I 

I 


4 

I 

I 
I 

I 


I 


6 




I 


I 






I 


29 


10 


I 




I 


I 




I 


4 


I 


I 




I 


I 






T 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 
TABLE Xlll— Continued 



IV 



25 
VI 



22 
VII 



2 4 



17 



p! Q 

t/) Ph 



NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 
TABLE Xlll— Continued 



123 





! 
i 7 






pq 


PP 


P3 


PQ 
< 


CO 


§' 

< 






d!" 
s d 




Q 
pq 


VIII 


I 

2 
3 
4 


I 












I 
I 




I 

4 

I 
I 


I 


I 
I 

I 








X 


20 

IX 


8 

I 

2 
3 
4 

9 
10 
II 


I 






I 


I 


I 


5 

I 
I 
I 

I 


I 


I 

d 

I 
I 


22 

X 


II 

I 
2 
3 
4 

1 

7 






I 
I 


I 


I 


I 
I 


6 
I 


I 


2 

I 

I 
I 


I 


I 
I 








2 
I 


20 

XI 


7 

I 
2 
3 
4 

5 


I 




2 




I 
I 


I 


I 

I 
I 
I 




3 

I 
I 
I 




2 

I 








I 


23 


5 


i| 






2 




3 




3I I 


I 











124 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 
TABLE yilll— Concluded 



XII 

13 
261 


I 
2 
3 
4 

9 
10 
II 
12 
13 

13 

no 


12 


t 
~3 


t 

_ 
5 


pq" 
3 


pq 

I 

I 
I 

■0 


pq 

I 

I 

10 


pq 
< 

I 


~3 


< 

I 

I 
I 

I 

I 

6 
43 


P 


CO 

2 


P 

I 
22 


P 
2 


pq 

I 

I 


P 

hi 
2 


p 
I 


d 
3 


I 











TABLE XIV 






THE NUMBER 


OF INSTRUCTORS 




A. 


In each Normal School faculty. 




B. 


Hold 


ng 


degrees of college standing. 




C. 


Hold 


ng 


higher 


degrees (without B). 




D. 


Holding pedagogical degrees (alone) . 




E. 


Holding special degrees (alone) . 




F. 


Holding 


no degrees. 






A 


B 


C 


D 


E 


F 


I 


24 


7 


5 


I 


I 


II (one man is in C and D) 


II 


22 


7 


5 






10 


III 


29 


6 


I 


I 


2 


19 


IV 


24 


6 


I 






17 


V 


25 


7 






I 


17 


VI 


22 


3 


4 




I 


IS (one man is in C and E) 


VII 


17 


6 


2 


I 




8 


VIII 


20 


5 


2 


I 




12 


IX 


22 


9 






2 


II 


X 


20 


2 


4 


2 


I 


f (one man is in C and ] 
I (one man is in C and 


XI 


23 


4 


I 






18 


XII 


13 


12 


^ 










261 74 26 



8 151 (four counted twice) 



NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 125 

Total degrees for the twelve State Normal Schools are: 

Pd.B 12 A.B 52 LL.B 1 

Pd.M 3 S.M 3 LL.D 2 

Pd.D 5 A.M 43 B.D. i 

B.L. 3 Sc.D 2 O.M. 3 

Ph.B 10 Ph.D. 22 M.P I 

B.S 10 M.D 2 

Our real problem centers about the number of instructors 
holding degrees of collegiate standing; this for the reason 
that pedagogical degrees are as yet of inferior rank, and 
many higher degrees are obtained in special ways and do 
not always indicate even the rank of a collegiate degree; 
while special degrees are what their name implies. We 
cannot, therefore, consider the no out of the 261 instruc- 
tors as all acceptable degree men. If this discrimination 
seems unjust, it must nevertheless be accepted for the pur- 
poses of this study and allowance made if the conclusions 
reached here are not admitted. A classification of these 
degrees is given below. It is to be distinctively understood 
that this chapter does not claim that the 26 instructors with 
higher degrees have no degrees of collegiate standing. Un- 
doubtedly some of them have ; on the other hand, it is known 
that some of them have not. The data asked called for all 
degrees, and in general this request seems to have been 
complied with. There is no other way than to treat the 
data as given, and be willing to make some allowance if 
later information requires it. 

(i) Degrees of college standing: B. L., Ph. B., B. S., 
A. B. 

(2) Pedagogical degrees: Pd. B., Pd. M., Pd. D. 

(3) Higher degrees: S. M., A. M., Ph. D., Sc. D. 

(4) Special degrees: M. D., LL. B., LL. D., B. D., 
O. M. 



126 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

(5) Higher degrees without collegiate degree: There is 
some indefiniteness as to this item. In some of these cases, 
I know, the higher degree is without the preliminary college 
degree; in others there is an uncertainty. 

It is evidently unjust to the 74 of collegiate standing to 
say nothing more of them. Further credit must be given 
those who have, in addition to their collegiate work, at- 
tained to higher and special degrees. Further, it is well 
to know to what extent those of higher degrees — without 
collegiate standing — have also pedagogical or special de- 
grees. All of this is shown in Fig. 2, which gives a com- 
plete distribution of all the 261 instructors in the Normal 
Schools on the basis of the number and kind of degrees, 
and the absence of any degree at all. 

Some of the results as shown in Fig. 3 are quite sur- 
prising. Only 28 per cent — a little more than one in four — 
of all Normal School instructors are college graduates. 
Does this argue that the Normal Schools, standing as the 
trainers of the teachers of the public schools of the state, 
maintain that a college education is a minor matter in the 
shaping of popular education, that inspiration and efficiency 
are better gained from those without this higher intellectual 
training. Ten per cent of the instructors have advanced 
beyond the collegiate standing. This, it must be said, 
speaks well; the more so, if these schools stood for element- 
ary training only. Yet we can not but encourage an in- 
crease of this class. The low per cent of pedagogical de- 
grees is perhaps surprising. It is probably complimentary, 
considering the present standing of this degree and the 
requirements for its attainment. The 10 per cent of 
higher degrees without college standing should probably 
be in part distributed among the 28 and 10 per cent above, 
as explained earlier. The 58 per cent having no degrees 



NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 127 

at all seem an emphatic indication of the low equipment of 
these teachers. Nearly three out of every four of all Nor- 
mal School teachers have not even the pedagogical degree, 
to say nothing of collegiate or higher training. What pre- 
paration these teachers really have will be pointed out later. 
(See Table XVI, page 133). 

It is interesting to compare briefly the instructors in 
University departments of education with- those in Normal 
Schools with respect to academic attainments. Choosing 
certain typical university schools of education and including 
in the comparison the numerous teachers in the practice- 
schools and in technical departments who come under the 
general heading of officers of instruction, we obtain the 
following comparison : 

A, whole corps of instructors. 

B, degrees of college standing. 

C, higher degrees, in addition to those of college standing. 

D, higher degrees, without college standing. 

E, no degrees. 

A 

Normal Schools 261 

Schools of Education • • 1 59 
In percents of A. 

Normal Schools 100 

Schools of Education • • 100 

If we should collate the academic career of the individuals 
in university Schools of Education whose work parallels 
that of the staff of a New York ' State Normal School,' the 
proportion of collegiate and post-collegiate degrees would 
increase. 

1 No account is here taken of those holding special and pedagogical 
degrees. 



B 


C 


D 


E 


74 


29 


26 


151 


83 


49 


? 


70 


28 


II 


10 


58 (4spec. &ped.)) 
44 (4 spec.) J 


53 


31 


? 



128 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



Fig. 2. 
diagram illustrating degrees of college standing and their rela- 
tions to other degrees. 




Explanation : 

1. Roman numerals at margin indicate the school. 

2. The center, 74, gives the total of college degrees. 

3. The inner circle gives the college degrees of each school. 

4. The second circle gives the higher degrees of each school. 

5. The third circle gives the pedagogical degrees of each school, 

6. The fourth circle gives the special degrees of each school. 
Dotted lines show the relation. For example, in School I there are 

7 instructors with degrees of college standing. Of these 7, 6 have 
higher degrees. Of these 6, S have pedagogical degrees, and i has a 
special degree. There are 5 with higher degrees (without college de- 
grees). Of these S, i has pedagogical and i a special degree. 

7. The fifth circle gives the total number on the faculty. In paren- 
thesis, those without any degree. 



NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 129 



Fig. 3. 

summarV of the facts of fig. 2. 




1. Total degrees of college standing, 74, or 28% of the faculties. 
Of these 74, with higher degrees are 29, or 11% of the faculties. 

Of these 28, with pedagogical degrees are 5, or 2% of the faculties. 
Of these 28, with special degrees are 2, or 1% of the faculties. 
Of these 74, with pedagogical degrees (only) are 6, or 2% of the 
faculties. 

2. Total higher degrees, without college standing, 26, or 10% of the 
faculties. 

Of these 26, with pedagogical degrees are 2, or 1% of the faculties. 
Of these 26, with special degrees are 3, or 1% of the faculties. 

3. Total pedagogical degrees, without college standing, 6, or 2% of 
the faculties. 

4. Total special degrees, without college standing, 8 or 3% of the 
faculties. 

5. Total with no -degrees at all 151, or 58% of the faculties. 



We may next note briefly the colleges and universities 
represented by the collegiate and higher degrees already 
considered. These institutions are put into two classes as 
indicated in Table XV, page 130. It may be mentioned in 
this connection that most of the few pedagogical degrees are 
from the Normal College at Albany, The Michigan Nor- 
mal College and Wisconsin University are also represented. 
The sources of the few special degrees need not concern us. 

This table (XV) gives all the colleges and universities 
1 See Errata, p. 152, for corrections. 



I30 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



represented in the Normal Schools, together with the 
number of times each is represented, both by collegiate and 
higher degrees. In the former, Wellesley leads, followed 
closely by Cornell, Harvard, Smith, Vassar, Yale. In the 
latter, Syracuse leads,- closely followed by Rochester, Cor- 
nell, Illinois Wesleyan. 

TABLE XV 



COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES FROM 
BY INSTRUCTORS IN THE NEW 

Collegiate 

Wellesley 8 

Cornell 7 

Harvard 5 

Smith 5 

Vassar 5 

Yale 5 

Columbia 4 

Syracuse 4 

Rochester 3 

Chicago 2 

Illinois Wesleyan Univ 2 

Michigan 2 

Oberlin 2 

Dartmouth 

Wisconsin • 

Queens 

Westminster 

Scio 

Colorado 

Wabash 

Alma • 

Elmira 

Rutgers • 

Colgate 

Boston Univ 

St. Lawrence 

Amherst 

Adrian 

Hobart 

Genesee 

Middletown 

Michigan Nor. Col. 

Bucknell 



WHICH DEGREES HAVE BEEN TAKEN 
YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 

Higher 

Syracuse 6 

Rochester 5 

Cornell 4 

Illinois Wesleyan Univ 4 

Columbia 3 

Hamilton 3 

Harvard 3 

Amherst 2 

Bucknell 2 

Colgate 2 

Lafayette 2 

Michigan 2 

Yale 2 

McKendree 

Trinity 

Radcliffe 

Alfred Univ. 

Westminster 

Univ. of State of New York. 

Nat. Nor. Univ. (O.) 

Johns Hopkins 

Rutgers 

St. Lawrence - 

Illinois State Nor. Univ. 

Oberlin 

Union 

Hobart 

Genesee 

Smith 

Wellesley 

Berlin 

France 

Jena 

Leipsic 

Strassburg 

Zurich 



NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 



131 



Concerning table XV, three things are to be noted : 

1. Columbia University and Cornell University are not 
as well represented as might be expected. 

2. On the collegiate side, institutions outside of the state 
are well represented among the leading schools and number 
about two-thirds of all. On the side of the higher degree, 
New York has one-half of all represented. No state is so 
large and well equipped but that the introduction of men 
from other states will be advantageous. In this respect the 
representation seems good. 

3. Some of the higher degrees are not especially signi- 
ficant of advanced work and seem out of place in a list 
with degrees from Cornell, Columbia, Harvard, Johns 
Hopkins and Berlin. 

Two institutions must have special reference. It is seen 
in Table XV that five of the Normal School instructors 
have higher degrees from Rochester University. Four of 
these degrees are Doctor of Philosophy. But the Ph. D. 
from Rochester does not stand for advanced study. That 
university does not give this degree for work done,^ but 
only as. an honorary degree. These degrees cannot, then, 
be justly ranked with the others. 

The second institution for special reference is Illinois 
Wesleyan University. Three of the four higher degrees 
are Ph. D., and one is A. M. The standard of the degrees 
may be estimated when one reads in a recent catalog: 
"The Graduate Degrees of A. M., and Ph. D. are conferred 
only for work, the nature and extent of which will be stated 
on inquiry." ^ It is well known that this work may be 
done wholly in absentia. " The university does not give 
instruction in these courses, nor does it lay down a pre- 

1 Private letter from the President. 

2 Catalogue for 1903, page 12. 



132 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

scribed order of yearly or semi-yearly study The 

latest editions of the texts will be used in the preparation 
of examination papers. . . . Ph. D. matriculates are re- 
quired to present themselves at the university for the last 
examination." ^ 

A similar list of the sources of the degrees of instructors 
in university * Schools of Education * shows to the decided 
advantage of the latter, especially in the case of the higher 
degrees. 

The third part of this study concerns itself briefly with the 
preparation of those teachers who have no degrees. Of the 
261 Normal School teachers there are 151 of this class. But 
data available permit a consideration of only 89 of these, rep- 
resenting eight out of the twelve schools. It can scarcely 
be doubted that these eight schools are fairly representative 
of all. 

Table XVI, page 133, explains itself. But special at- 
tention is called to the statement of percentages which fol- 
lows it. Two of the statements may be repeated here. 

1. Fifty-eight per cent of those having no degree are edu- 
cated in the school in which they teach. That is, 

2. Thirty per cent of all Normal School instructors have 
had no further educational preparation than that offered by 
the school in which they are at present engaged as teachers 
(the elementary and perhaps high school study is, of course, 
not considered here). 

These two statements mean that over one-half of those 
with no degree— which usually means very little educational 
training — and nearly one third of all teachers in Normal 
Schools are turned right back as teachers where shortly be- 
fore they were students. This practice is in violation of the 

1 Announcement — Graduate and Non-Resident Department, 1904, pp. 
8-10. 



NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS [33 

principle advocated at the opening of this chapter and 
approaches the Lancastrian system of monitorial instruc- 
tion. The pernicious effects of such a practice will be re- 
ferred to later. 

TABLE XVI 

THE PREPARATION (aS FAR AS IT IS KNOWN) OF THE I5I INSTRUCTORS 
IN THE NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS WHO HAVE NO DEGREES. 

A, the number in each school with no degree. 

B, graduates of the school in which they are teaching. 

C, graduates of other Normal Schools of the State. 

D, those who have studied in various schools.^ 

A B C D 



I 


II 


8 


2 




No data for one. 


II 


10 


5 


2 


3 




III 


19 








No data. 


IV 


17 








No data. 


V 


17 


9 


4 


4 




VI 


15 


8 


3 


4 




VII 


8 








No data. 


VIII 


12 


6 


3 


2 


One is of high school only. 


IX 


II 


3 


4 


4 




X 


13 


12 




I 




XI 


18 








No data. 


XII 














151 SI 18 18 

It is safe to consider the eight schools for which data 
are given as typical of all the twelve schools. Upon this 
basis, we have 89 teachers without degrees, distributed as 
in the table above. 

Thus it may be said of teachers without degrees : 

1 These are Pratt Institute, 4; Emerson School of Oratory, 2; 
Harvard Summer School, 2; Art League (N. Y.), i; Elocution in 
Philadelphia, i ; Yale Physical Training, i ; Cooper Union, i ; Academic 
Francaise des Etats Unis, i ; Gorham Normal School, i ; Framingham 
Normal School, i ; Mansfield Normal School, i. 



134 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



S8 per cent, are graduates of the school in which they teach. 

20 per cent, are graduates of other Normal Schools of the state. 

20 per cent, have done some work in the various schools, named above. 

I per cent, is a high school student only. 

I per cent, is unaccounted for. 

A similar study of instructors in university ' Schools of 
Education ' who lack degrees, shows a much smaller propor- 
tion of students trained only by a single institution, much 
less ' in-breeding",' and much more study abroad. 

In line with the foregoing, a study was made of the 
professional preparation of the faculty of one school from 
its foundation in 1869 to 1894.^ The history of the school 
published at that time gives a brief account of each 
person who had been upon the faculty in those twenty-five 
years. This account seems to speak as highly as possible 
of those instructors, such as, " He has been highly honored 
with the degrees A. B., A. M., D. D., LL.D." The account 
can therefore be relied upon as giving all the degrees held 
by the 78 men and women who, in the period of 25 years, 
held positions in the school. 

The summary of results is as follows : 

Total number of instructors 78 

Holding collegiate degrees.. . .' 20 

Holding higher degrees 20 (5 of these Ph. D.) 

Holding special degrees 4 

Holding no degrees 46 

If we consider the Ph. B. as a degree of college standing 
in this particular case although it comes from a correspond- 
ence school, we have 20, or slightly more than one-fourth 
of the instructors in the school, who have completed work 
of college standing. So also there are 20 holding higher 
degrees, A. M. and Ph. D. There are 4 who hold special 

1 First Quarto -Centennial History, Potsdam Normal School. 



NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 



135 



degrees. Thirty are Normal School graduates, 1 7 of whom 
are graduates of this school. There are 16 who have done 
no higher study at all. Putting these with the Normal 
School graduates, we have 46 out of the 78 who have no 
degrees. 

We may now make comparison with the state at large as 
seen in Fig. 3, page 129. 

State. This School. 

Holding college degrees 28% 26% 

With higher degrees 11% 17% 

Holding only higher degrees 10% 4% 

Holding no degrees 58% 59% 

If the past record of this school is typical of the others of 
the state, there is little difference between the present and 
past. This would mean that the Normal Schools are mak- 
ing little headway in securing instructors of more advanced 
educational qualification. 

The institutions which granted degrees to the instructors 
of the school under consideration are the following, — the 
numbers at the left indicate the number of degrees granted : 

College Degrees. Higher Degrees. 

3 Rochester. 3 Rochester. 

3 Syracuse. 3 Syracuse. 

2 Union. 2 Hamilton. 

2 Yale. I Boston University. 

I Amherst. i Bowdoin. 

I Bowdoin. i Colgate. 

I Cornell. i St. Lawrence. 

I Hamilton. i Union. 

I Howard. i University of New York. 

I Illinois Wesleyan. i Yale. 
I Michigan. 

I Packee Collegiate Institute. 
« Williams. 

It must be remarked that four of the five Ph. D. degrees 



136 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



given are honorary degrees; given by four of the univer- 
sities in this hst. Such practice speaks for itself, and a 
record of four such degrees out of five " speaks louder 
than words." 

By way of a brief summary of the leading points of this 
study, the following statements may be made. 

I. As TO DEGREES : 

1. Twenty-eight per cent of all instructors in the 
Normal Schools have had college training. (This 
may be slightly increased owing to lack of defi- 
niteness of data). 

2. Eleven per cent of all instructors attained higher 
degrees in addition to collegiate standing. 

3. Normal Schools have only one-half the proportion 
of college-trained instructors found in one Uni- 
versity School of Education, and only one-fourth 
the proportion of those who have advanced to 
higher degrees. They compare but slightly more 
favorably with other university Schools of 
Education. 

II. As TO INSTITUTIONS REPRESENTED : 

A wide range of institutions are represented by 
the collegiate degrees, but the higher degrees are 
much more limited to the state. Yet neither 
list as a whole shows the strongest institutions 
and some are questionable. 

III. As TO THE NON-DEGREE TEACHERS : 

1. Fifty-eight per cent of all Normal School instruc- 
tors have no degree. 

2. Thirty per cent of all Normal School instructors 



NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 



137 



have received no higher education than that of 
the school in which they are teaching. 
3. Tlie non-degree teachers show very httle edu- 
cational training outside of the Normal School 
work. 

The foregoing considerations afford material for much 
discussion, but a few conclusions only will be made. This 
whole study may seem to be in criticism of the status quo 
of the teaching staff of the New York State Normal Schools. 
Circumstances seem to warrant just this. Yet some will 
say that the Normal Schools are doing a good work, com- 
mensurate with the needs and proportionate to that of 
other institutions. As said above, we have not at hand 
criteria for measurement of the efficiency of this work. 
The whole argument is upon the assumption that the work 
done in the Normal Schools is not what may properly be 
expected — or at least wished — at this time. The effort of 
this chapter has been to point out one of the vital elements 
of weakness and in so doing suggest a remedy. 

One other assumption has been evident : viz., that the 
college degree stands for much in the way of educational 
equipment : the college degree has here been used as a meas- 
ure of efficiency. To this many. Normal School men espec- 
ially, may object: and it is admitted that many men with 
college degrees .are most conspicuously unfit for educational 
work. In spite of this the college man as such stands as a 
type of man educationally qualified when compared with 
men lacking this training. 

A third consideration was referred to earlier : The Nor- 
mal Schools undoubtedly stand primarily for the training 
of elementary teachers. Yet the truth is, they do attempt 
to prepare some teachers for secondary schools. In either 
case, if our second assumption is valid, and if we have 



138 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

regard for the German principle mentioned above, the Nor- 
mal School student, as a prospective teacher, may well ex- 
pect and demand that the larger portion of his instruction 
be at the hands of teachers of at least collegiate training. 
Conclusions may be stated as follows : 

1. There are too few college-trained men and women 
on the teaching staff of the Normal Schools of New York. 
More such teachers are needed to give a more scholarly 
character to the work in place of the more narrow and shal- 
low work in " methods." Such a class of teachers is further 
needed to bring a broader and deeper experience and insight 
into the work and life of the Normal School. Thirdly, 
there is need of this class of teachers that the Normal Schools 
may be brought into closer touch with colleges and uni- 
versities. The estrangement is now too great. The Nor- 
mal School needs the influence of the universities that are 
doing the advanced and more progressive work in educa- 
tional problems.^ The Normal Schools lag behind, satisfied 
with the work done in the past. Finally, this higher class 
of teachers is needed to attract a better class of students to 
these schools. The common report is too true that young 
people attend these schools who are able to do nothing else. 
A stronger corps of teachers will attract a stronger class 
of students. 

2. The Normal Schools are fairly represented by teachers 
who have degrees in advance of the collegiate standing. 
This higher attainment is not to be insisted upon for all or 
even for the many, yet it should be encouraged. Normal 
Schools should be doing some research work in the way of 
actual tests of practical school work. Such work calls for 
the student trained in graduate study. 

3. It is .probable that it would be advantageous if more 

1 See a study by Meriam, in American Education, 7 : 97-99, 1903. 



NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 



139 



of the leading institutions were represented in the Normal 
Schools. Too few of the degree men in the Normal Schools 
come from the centers of greatest advance and most pro- 
gressive methods in educational work. 

4. The proportion of teachers who have had no more 
advanced training than afforded in the Normal Schools 
themselves should be much lessened. Without this im- 
provement there is too much of the Lancastrian monitorial 
system, the instructor only a lesson in advance of his stu- 
dents. The effect of such work is too evident to need com- 
ment. But there is in this connection a greater evil. Our 
inquiry has shown that 30 per cent of all Normal School in- 
structors have received no educational training in advance 
of the school in which they are now teaching. The 30 per 
cent, too, includes only those who are without degrees of 
any kind. The percent would be somewhat increased if 
the degree men. were added. The pernicious effect of this 
in-breeding (to use a strong but characteristic expression) 
is evident; the more injurious, indeed, the more lacking these 
teachers are in a broad educational training. This practice 
narrows, stultifies, and malces barren the work and life of the 
school thus guilty. 

To supplement the study of degrees held by Normal 
School faculties of New York state, I have taken 49 other 
schools scattered throughout the country. This study is 
based upon the catalogs of these schools in the years 1901 
and 1902. Not all catalogs show the preparation of the 
various instructors. Out of a nearly complete file of the 
catalogs of State Normal Schools, 49 supply the informa- 
tion sought. It must be admitted that this material is not 
as reliable as that of the New York schools : yet it is prob- 
able that any generalizations made will be not far from the 
truth. In this list janitors, engineers, nurses, gardeners, etc. 



I40 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 



are not counted, though in a large number of the schools 
they are listed with the " faculty." 

Table XVII, pages 142-144 gives in detail the facts col- 
lected from these catalogs. For convenience, I have divided 
the states into four groups, viz. : The North Eastern, The 
North Central, The Western, and The Southern. States 
not represented are those having no state Normal Schools, 
or not giving desired information in the catalogs. 

The number in the column marked ' Professional depart- 
ment' indicates the instructors in that department. The next 
column shows the number in the ' Training department.' In 
only a few schools, however, is this differentiation made. 
The numbers in the various degree columns indicate the 
number of instructors in that particular school holding such 
degrees, e. g., in school 12 (of i), 7 hold the degree 
M. E. ; 4, the A. B. ; 4, the A. M. ; 3, the Ph. D. ; and there 
are three with special degrees. The little figures i, 2, 3, 
etc., refer to the following key: 

1. Instructor also holds A. M. degree. 

2. Instructor also holds M.S. degree. 

3. Instructor also holds A. B. degree. 

4. Instructor also holds B. S. degree. 

5. Instructor also holds Ph. B. and B. L. degrees. 

6. Instructor also holds Pedagogical Degree. 

7. Instructor also holds Special Degree. 

For example, in school 12, 2 of the 3 holding the Ph. D. 
degree also hold the A. M. degree. 

Tliese 49 schools may be taken as typical of the Normal 
Schools throughout the country. The question asked here 
is the same as that asked concerning the schools of New 
York state, viz. : What is the preparation of the instructors 
in these schools, judged by the degrees they hold? It 
must again be emphasized that the mere possession of a de- 
gree is no absolute criterion of efficiency in teaching. But 



NEPV YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 



141 



the tendency of all educational institutions is to demand of 
their instructors the possession of collegiate or higher de- 
gree, as evidence of having pursued courses that prepare for 
educational work. The degree, then, serves as one mark 
of preparation. In these 49 Normal Schools scattered 
throughout the country outside of New York state, we find 
a total of 1063 teachers. 188 of these belong to the train- 
ing departments. In some of these schools, this means 
teachers in the grades. We shall, therefore, exclude these 
from consideration. It may be noted, in passing, that 9 of 
these hold collegiate degrees: 3 have the A. M. degree; 3, 
the A. B. degree; 2, the B. S. degree; and i, the Ph. D. 

Omitting these 188, we have 875 Normal School teachers 
to consider. The character of the data forfeids going into 
detail as in the consideration of the New York teachers. 
For example: in only a few cases can we tell what lower 
degree is held by one who has an A. M. or a Ph. D. Such 
a case, however, may be seen in group III, school 3, in 
column headed Ph. D. Here are two men holding this 
degree, one of whom holds the A. M. (marked i ) : the other, 
a special degree (marked 7). We shall, therefore, con- 
sider only the total. 



142 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 
TABLE XVII 

NORTHEASTERN STATES 





L 


1 


1 
















1 








C3 


1 




























c 






























.2 . 














1 










Special. 




1 


1" 










J 


ml . 


pq 


i 


< 






I 
































I 


16 


13 














I 


I 




I 


I 




■d 


2\ 13 






















I 






4; 


1 


19 


























3 


3 


8 
















I 




2 






J3 







18' 


























4 


16 


1 












I 


2 






I 




iS 






9 
























^ 


5 


15 


















I 




i^ 


I] 






6 


7 


























I M.D. 


u 


7 


10 


19 




















I 




I M.D. 


(U 


8 


10 


















I 








I LL.D. 




9 


10 












I 






I 




I 


I 








12 
















2 






I 




h4 


10 


33 














1 


2 


2 




2 


4 


I M.D. 


id 






31 














2 


3 




I 






HH* 


II 


22 
















2 




I 


2 






cci 


12 


29 


12 








7 








4 




4^ 


3} 


iM.B., iM.D., 
I B.O. 


ei 


13 


24 










7 












4' 


I ' 


2B.O., I B.E. 


'S 


14 


29 










2 








6 


3 


3* 


I 


I D.D. 


1 


15 


26 










10 








2 




9" 


I' 




C 
C 


16 


44 




2 


I 




7 








3? 


3 


3 


5}] 


































tS 


17 
18 


19 
30 










5 

7 








I 


2 


3 

7 




I M.D., I M.B. 


^ 
































c 

































































S 


19 


S 






















2 








20 


5 






















I 






> 


21 


6 








- 


45 


I 










I 






Total. 


21 


377 




2 


I 


I 


"^:^i 


"948I 


25 


12 special. 








I33J 














2| 


^1 


1 


I 


I 





NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 
TABLE XVII— Continued 

WEST CENIRAL STATES 



143 







-rt 


















i 








c 




















; 








.2 . bo . 


































. 
























1 


oQ go 


i 


CM Ph 


§ pq Ph PQ 




< 


P 

Ph 


Special. 


II 














"T 








. 




j_: 


I 


17 












I 


I 


2 




5 


2' 




'-' 






II 
























rt 


2 


50 




3 


2 






I 7 

1 


2 


I 


3 


14 


2 


I U.S.A., iPh.M. 




3* 


27 












1 
I 


I 






4 


4 


2B.M., iPh.M., 


W 


4 


20 




2 


1 








2 


3 


I 


2 




2B.P. 


J3 







9 










1 








I 






i 


5 


55 


14 










3 6 

1 I 


2 


4S 


4S 


7« 


I 


I Ph.M., iLL.B. 


C 






























d 


6 


24 












I 2 


2 


i' 


l^ 


2 


I 




7 


18 












I 


3 


I 


I ' 


2-' 


i'^ 


iM.S.D. 


J3 
0) 


8 


22 




I 








I 


I 


4 




2 


li 




^ 

































9 


7 

i 4 










I 2 




I 




2 






M 


10 


10; 












2 


I 


2 


I 








lit 


14 

1 










1 




I 


I 


3' 






in 


12 


19^ 




I 






2' 2 






2 




I 




g 


13 


20 j 

7 


6 


^ 






V 


I 


I 


I 


2* 


2 


I Ph. M. 


Total 


13 


313 




1" 


1521 17 20 


Ve 


46 IS 


II special. 








45 












" 








2 







* 16 without any degrees are graduates of this school. 
1 7 are graduates of normal schools. 



144 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 
TABLE y^NW— Concluded 

WESTERN STATES 





' 






i 






















§ 


1" 


bo , 




i 




pq £ 








^ 
< 


Q 

PLH 


Special. 


III 




















Ariz. 


I 


7 










I 






I 








I 






2 


20 














2 


I 




3 


I 




Cal, 


^ 


26 


7 










I 


I» 






■ 


3^ 


2\ 


iB. P. 
I M. L, 


Col. 


4 


24 




4 


2 










^ 


I 


2 


4« 


3 




Mon. 


5 


9 












2 






I 


I 


2 


I 




N. M. 


6 


9 
















3 








I 


I B. Acct. 


Wash. 


7 


13 














I 




I 




2 


2 




Ore. 


8 


17 
















I 


4 




I 




4B. S. D. 


Ida. 


9 


10 




4 


2 


- 


I 


3 




I 


2 




2' 






Total 


9 


135 




2 


10 


10 


4|i7 


II 1 7 special. 








7 










' 1 




1 













SOUTHERN 


STATES 








IV 

Ark. 


I 


5 


















2 






ji 


I L. I. 


Fla. 


2 


6 


















I 








2 L.I. 


Ga. 


3 

4 


5 
14 


3 














I 


2 




4 




I B. E. 


Vir. 


5 


12 


















3 




I 


I 




W. Vir. 


6 
6 


8 
50 


3 




_ 


- 


~i 








2 




I 






Total 


1 




10 




6 


2 


4 Special. 


Grand 
Total 


49 


8« 


i88 


12 


8 




1924 

i' 


• 


65 1^9 


117 
3 


53 


34 Special. 



NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 



145 



The following table shows the totals in the four groups : 
TABLE XVIII. 



N. Eastern States . 
W. Central States. 
Western States • . . 
Southern States • . . 

Totals 



. 








































































,£! 
















































rt 
























^ 
























jm 


S 


W 


J 


pq 


c/i 


pq 


•d 


§ 


Q 


rt 
V 


6 1^ 


Tl 






ja 


. 


. 






X! 


n 


'Z 


PM 


PU 


^ 


pq 


Ph 


pq 


<: 


m 


< 


Ph 


c/) 


377 


2 


I 


45 


. 


I 


62s 


9 


48 


25 


12 


313 


6 


5 




15 


21 


17,20 


16 


46 


15 


II 


135 


4 


2 


I 


3 


2 


IO|IO 


4 17 


II 


7 


50 












I 


10 




6 


2 


4 


87s 


12 


8 


46 


19 


24 


34 


6s 


29 


117 


53 


34 



Let us group these, as with the New York schools, into 
pedagogical, collegiate, higher, and special degrees. 
Pedagogical degrees : Pd. B. ; Pd. M. ; M. E.^ 
Collegiate " B. L. ; Ph. B. ; B. S. ; A. B. 

Higher " S. M.; A. M.; Ph. D. 



N. Eastern States. 
W. Central States 
Western States — 
Southern States • • • 

Total 



TABLE XIX (i). 

No. of teachers. Pedagogical. Collegiate. Higher. Special. 

377 

313 

135 

50 



48 


33 


82 


12 


II 


73 


77 


II 


7 


25 


32 


7 




II 


8 


4 



875 



66 



142 



199 



34 



Expressing these in per cent of the number of teachers, 

1 The M. E. is the " Master of Elementary Didactics " degree. This 
was at one time given by the Normal Schools of Pennsylvania, but has 
now been discontinued. 



TABLE XIX (2). 








. Pedagogical. Collegiate. 


Higher. 


Special. 


Nodej 


15 9 


22 


3 


51 


3 23 


24 


3 


47 


5 19 


24 


5 


47 


22 


16 


8 


54 



146 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

we have the following: showing, also, the percentage of 
teachers having no degree at all. 



N. Eastern States. .100 
W. Central States.. 100 

Western States 100 

Southern States • • • 100 

100 8 16 23 4 49 

Comparing these figures with those for New York, we 
have: 

Pedagogical. Collegiate. Higher. Special. No degrees. 

New York 2 28 10 3 58 

Other States 8 16 23 4 49 — 

The large percentage holding pedagogical degrees in 
'' other states " is due to the early practice in the Pennsyl- 
vania schools, already referred to. The lower percentage 
holding collegiate degrees — 16 as compared with 28 — is 
doubtless due to the inaccuracy of the data, in that 23 per 
cent are assigned to the higher degrees, while many of these 
are doubtless holders of collegiate degrees as well. If we 
assume that in " other states " the percentage of instructors 
having higher degrees without collegiate is that of New 
York, viz. : 10 per cent, we would then have practically the 
same percentage of collegiate degrees, viz. : 29. This as- 
sumption is probably not far from the truth. Those having 
special degrees are practically the same. The above figures 
show that 58 per cent of the New York Normal School 
teachers have no degrees : while in " other states," there 
are only 49 per cent. Yet these figures are probably, in 
reality, practically the same. Seventy per cent of all the 
pedagogical degrees in " other states " are the M. E., now 
discarded by the very schools which once gave them. This 



NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 147 

means, essentially, that 70 per cent of these 8 per cent must 
be ranked with those having no degree. This leaves only 
about 2 per cent in " other states " holding pedagogical de- 
grees, and gives 55 per cent having no degrees. 

Thus we conclude that the standing of the teachers in the 
Empire State Normal Schools is practically typical of that 
throughout the Normal Schools of the country. Or, in 
other words, the low standard in the New York schools, as 
pointed out above, is typical of the Normal Schools of the 
country; and all conclusions reached with reference to the 
former are substantiated by a study of the larger group. 

The holding of degrees — as discussed above — is only one 
of many standards by which one's preparation for an educa- 
tional position may be estimated. Too much must not be 
based on that standard. Too much must not be based on 
any one standard. One other standard may be here briefly 
considered. This is that of contributions to educational 
literature. 

This surely must not be considered a very safe standard. 
There are teachers, and there are writers. Greatness in the 
former does not necessarily suggest power in the latter. 
" Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, in the Educational Review 
protesting against Dr. Stanley Hall's magnifying research 
and investigation as a necessary element in a progressive 
and effectual scholar, says : * It must be borne in mind that 
productive scholarship and printing are far from being iden- 
tical. The highest type of productive scholarship in our 
day finds its expression through will work in institutions, 
great and small.' " ^ President Butler would doubtless ap- 
ply this principle to the teacher. The highest type of effi- 
cient teaching is in " will work " in the class room, rather 
than in contributions to the press. 

1 American Education, vol. v, p. 79. 



148 NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 

On the other hand, there is much in President Hall's em- 
phasis upon the value of research and investigation, as a 
necessary element in progressive and effectual educational 
work. This element is a necessary prerequisite to valuable 
contributions to educational Hterature. It is just as essen- 
tial to progressive and efficient teaching. One who is mak- 
ing such progress through some form of research will doubt- 
less make his advancement known through books or educa- 
tional periodicals. Thus contributions to current educa- 
tional literature form probably another actual criterion of 
the interest and progressiveness in educational work on the 
part of our Normal School instructors. 

To this end I have examined all the articles published 
in 1895, 1900, and 1903, in six of our leading educational 
periodicals (with one exception, American Education, which 
was not easily accessible for just these dates). As is well 
known, Normal Schools have laid considerable emphasis 
upon psychology. It is not, then, out of place to consider 
here two psychological magazines. Except in the School 
Review, all " Reviews " are included as regular articles. 
The contributors are divided in four groups: i. Normal 
School teachers; 2. Public School teachers, including prin- 
cipals and superintendents; 3. College and University in- 
structors ; 4. Others, including business men, public officials, 
and the writers of unsigned articles. 

The figures given in Table XX, page 150 are subject 
to some criticism, by reason of the indefiniteness of the 
fourth group. This includes all articles not classed in one 
of the other three groups. This includes a large number 
where no signature is given, or where I was unble to locate 
the author by his name alone. The importance, however, 
of these figures lies in the relations among the other three 
columns. 



NEW YORK STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS 149 

Out of a total of 1438 articles examined, only 78, or about 
5 per cent, are contributed by Normal School men: 13 per 
cent are contributed by teachers in the Public Schools; 48 
per cent are contributed by college instructors. We must 
not place too much dependence on these figures : but they do 
measure the relatively small amount contributed to educa- 
tional literature by Normal School instructors. As pointed 
out above, this is one of many tests of activity in educa- 
tional problems. 



ISO 



NORMAL SCHOOL EDUCATION 
TABLE XX 





Il 


J 
1^ 


C'S5 

r 


(U 




1 


Psychological Review 1895 

1900 
1903 


2 


20 

9 

20 


95 


59 

41 

9 




Total 

American Jour, of Psy. 1895 

1900 
1^03 


228 

25 
14 
36 


109 

14 

17 
2 

33 

27 
34 
21 


337 


Total 

Educational Review 1895 

1900 
1903 


2 

3 


75 

72 

55 
54 


110 


Total 

Education 1895 

1900 
1903 


23 
5 

6 

5 


49 

16 
18 
II 


181 

23 
15 
II 


82 

50 
54 
33 


335 


Total 

School Review 1895 

1900 
1903 


16 

3 
3 
2 


45 

19 
12 

17 


49 

64 
41 
23 


137 

23 
20 
14 

57 

18 
17 
2 


247 


Total 

Pedagogical Seminary 1895 

1900 
1903 


8 

I 

I 
4 


48 

25 
24 


128 

7 
9 
II 


241 


Total 


6 

4 
19 


27 

2 
2 


37 

7 
15 


70 


1903-4 




Total 

Grand Total 


23 

78 


49 
191 


4 
692 


22 
477 


148 
1438 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



Special references are made to the following: 
American Journal of Instruction, 1830, 1833, 1835, 1841. 
Atkinson, F. W. Professional Preparation of the Secondary Teacher 

in the United States. 
Barnard, H. On Normal Schools. 

Boas, . Yale Psychological Studies, 2 : 40. 

Brown, E. E. The Making of Our Middle Schools. 

Butler, N. M. American Education, 5 : 79. 

Common School Journal, 1839, 1840. 

Davenport, C. B. Statistical Methods. 

Gilbert, J. American Journal of Psychology, 4 : 366. 

Gordy, J. P. Beginning of the Normal Idea in the United States. 

Literary Gazette, 1825. 

Meriam, J. L. American Education, 1903. 

Miinsterberg, H. Atlantic Monthly, 1903. 

North American Review, 1825. 

Pearson, K. Grammar of Science. 

Phillips, J. H. Chicago School Commission's Report, 1900. 

Potsdam Normal School, First Quarto -Centennial History of. 

Spearman, C. American Journal of Psychology, 1904. 

Thorndike, E. L. Educational Psychology. 

Lecture Notes, 1903-1904. 

Mental and Social Measurements. 
United States Review, 1825. 
Wissler, C. Psychological Review Monograph, 3 : no. 6. 

Reports 
Chicago. Special Commission, 1900. 
Committee of Fifteen. 

Illinois. State Board of Education, 1900-1902. 
Iowa. State Board of Education, 1902. 
Massachusetts. State Board of Education, 1900-1902. 
Missouri. State Superintendent, 1897. 
National Educational Association, 1858-1900. 

151 



152 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



New York. State Superintendent, 1836, 1902. 
Ohio. Commissioner of Comm,on Schools, 1902. 
United States Commissioner of Education, 1897. 

Catalogues 
Albany Academy, 1874. 
Albany, Normal College, 1846, 1903, 1904. 
Andover Academy, 1848, 1874. 
California, University of, 1903. 
Chicago University, 1902-1903. 
Cincinnati University, 1901-1902. 
Cornell University, 1897-1899. 
Dartmouth College, 1903-1904. 
Illinois Wesleyan University, 1903, 1904. 
Los Angeles (Cal.) Normal School, 1901. 
Michigan, University of, 1903-1904. 
Missouri, University of, 1903-1904. 
New Paltz (N. Y.) Normal School, 1902-1903. 
Oshkosh (Wis.) Normal School, 1901. 
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1904-1905. 
Westfield (Mass.) Normal School, 1901. 
Wisconsin, University of, 1903-1904. 



ERRATA 
Page 129. Figure 3 should show 29, instead of 28, holding higher 
degrees in addition to a college degree. Of these 5, instead of 6, hold 
pedagogical degrees. The percents in the second part of the figure 
should be II and 2 respectively, instead of lo-j- and 2-|-. 



VITA 

The writer, Junius Lathrop Meriam, was born in Ran- 
dolph, Ohio, in 1872. He received the A. B. at Oberhn 
Colleg^e in 1895; graduated from the New York State Nor- 
mal College at Albany in 1898; was Austin Scholar in 
Harvard University, 1901-2, where he took the A. M. 
in 1902; continued graduate study in Education and Psy- 
chology in Harvard University, 1902-3, Columbia Uni- 
versity, 1903-4. He was township superintendent and high 
school principal in Wakeman, Ohio, 1895-7; principal of 
an elementary school in Akron, Ohio, 1898-9; supervisor 
of practice teaching in the New York State Normal College, 
1899-1901 ; Assistant in Philosophy in Harvard University, 
1902-3; Teaching Fellow in History of Education and 
Secondary Education in Teachers College, Columbia Uni- 
versity, 1903-4; Assistant Professor of Tlieory and Practice 
of Teaching in the University of Missouri, 1904-5; Pro- 
fessor 1905 — . 

153 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



■i 



021 774 829 fl 



